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.

It really doesn't take a king or queen to hand out honours.

Instead of knighthoods, you can have some other award or set of awards.
It doesn't seem to be very challenging to come up with an awards system to recognise outstanding achievement or service.

A U.K. with no monarchy would be boring, soulless and grim

But it’s already grim, and soulless. And the Royals are about as boring as you can get. Who even cares what they do? I don’t give a fuck.

If there is more access, more tourists will go, instead of standing around, looking through the gates.

We need to change the deferential culture in this country, 10s of 1000s died during CV because we, the ordinary, common as muck subjects couldn't get treated, so died in care homes or at home, same now is happening in general health care.

Meanwhile, the wealthy and privileged get the very best care & we all cheer! that system of deference starts at the top - the Royal Family.

European countries with either no Royals or a very much slimmed down one, have more equality, better roads, rail, education and health.

How disgusting that the royals managed to get the law changed so they don't pay inheritance tax. Their reason being..... "to protect their wealth"

You couldn't make it up.

I'm only halfway through the thread but wanted to post before i forget.

I'd rather bankroll a democratically elected president than a socially constructed elite.
Even if it was someone like Boris, or Trump?

I find the lack of imagination in these discussions staggering. And it's because most people think USA when they think President, rather than being sensible and looking at, say, Ireland or Germany. I usually suggest Tanni Grey Thompson in these conversations, or Floella Benjamin. Someone like Brian Cox (professor not actor) might be good. But recently i've been thinking that Doreen Lawrence would be good too. There is no reason it couldn't be Ian McMillan. Literally anyone.

Written constitutions that are untouchable are daft. 2nd Amendment is a great case in point. They won't change it but it is an actual amendment because the USA realised that a constitution written in stone is daft. Countries like Germany have them, and change and update them as needed. To reflect, say, equality of women. A written constitution that has a periodic review is no bad thing.

I really don't see why being born from the right parents means you get to be head of state. It is ridiculous. Coupled with the fact that it's not that long since Charles received bagsfull of cash, and the black spider letters, etc. He is not suitable. But we're stuck with him and It will be interesting to see how he slims down the monarchy now. He should be able to do that quickly since he's been going on about it for ages so he must have plans already.

Further: i am annoyed by the "now is not the time" if we bring up abolishing the monarchy. And "be kind" as though we're advocating for a public beheading. This is a continuing discussion, and it must not be silenced.

TBH I think it is downright sinister that republican protesters are being arrested at King Charles proclamations.

According to one news source:

'Two protesters who expressed republican sentiments have been arrested at events proclaiming the accession to the throne of King Charles III.

A man said he was arrested for shouting, “Who elected him?” when the proclamation was read out in Oxford.

Symon Hill, 45, said he had come across the event by chance as he walked home from church. The history tutor said that after he shouted the words, some people nearby told him to “shut up” and he responded by saying: “A head of state has been imposed on us without our consent.”

Three security guards approached him before police intervened, he said. Hill said he was taken to a police van, despite the protestations of others, who defended his right to free expression'.

What exactly are the grounds for making such an arrest.....treason? I thought this was a free country with freedom of expression, yet it seems that no dissenting voices are allowed and we are all required to celebrate our new King without question?

Yes, l think it’s shocking too. We are a democracy and should be able to say what we want.

DD is a journalist on national press. I was asking him why the BBC weren’t representing the Republican side of things. ) he doesn’t work for the Beeb)

He just said yes it was wrong and had been noted, but anything to do with the royal family just sells and sells.

A puppet head of state with no real authority does not, and will never fill me with confidence. 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.

But that is what you have right now. So what would change? Handing out a few baubles? most countries have things like the Order of Merit (USA) Bundesverdienstkreuz (Germany) and so on. But you don't get to put "Sir" or "Lord" in your twitter handle then.

While i wouldn't wish anyone dead, it would be interesting to see what a King Andrew might have brought in terms of reaction. I've met the Queen and others of that family on several occasions. Been at dinners. Had to bolt down my food (was hungry) on one occasion because you have to stop when they stop. And the Queen ate like a sparrow. It is ridiculous.

I don't mind if the Crown Estates aren't sold off. I would like them to be managed well, for our republic, and maximise their revenues for us. I'd love, once at least, to look at every cranny of Buck House ,Windsor Castle and the rest, as you can with a lot of Versailles or Neuschwanstein. Conservation of those kinds of buildings is good work, and keeps skills alive that are being lost (ditto lots of old churches etc).

An elected upper chamber with real teeth to scrutinise and reject badly written or badly intended legislation would be a real step forward. A president who doesn't have all the baggage a monarch brings would be great and she could also wear spectacular clothes and live in a nice place (the German president has a lovely official residence) too. Drawing a line under it all doesn't make history vanish. You can still having changing the guard, state opening of parliament etc, just without all the jewels. You could have a lovely military parade in place of Trooping the Colour, many countries do, to acknowledge the services. You don't have to not have a ceremony at the Cenotaph, every year, etc etc.

But an accident of birth is no more a basis to become head of state than some watery tart lobbing a scimitar at you.

What's happening to free speech and freedom of expression in this country, and has been for the past few years, is nothing short of terrifying. When proclaiming that a woman is an 'adult human female' is deemed 'hate speech', ergo illegal. When a tweet proclaiming that belief will have Humberside Police calling at your place to 'check your thinking'. When a person can be blacklisted for said hate speech, having never been found guilty of any criminal offence whatsoever, and there is nothing whatsoever you can do about it. When you don't even know, as you haven't been informed, that you've been added to such a blacklist. When a woman who has been raped requires single-sex facilities is informed she should 'reframe her trauma' when she responds negatively - possibly involuntarily - to having a male-bodied person in that space. When women are threatened with being raped or 'kerb-stomped' for espousing such a view. When protestors attending a vigil for a murder victim are arrested, under the pretext of draconian restrictions 'but COVID', when this pretext is precisely what led to the poor woman's murder in the first place. When lesbians are shoved out of Pride. When republicans are arrested for openly proclaiming their passionately and legitimately-held political convictions, when are not promoting terrorism, engaging in violent protest, disturbing the peace, or doing anything other than exercising the right to that political stance.

If citizens of the UK are not worried and deeply alarmed by this recent turn of events, they should be. 'Sinister' is exactly the right word.

A man said he was arrested for shouting, “Who elected him?” when the proclamation was read out in Oxford
What exactly are the grounds for making such an arrest.....treason?

I expect they'll blame a risk to public order, as in someone might have clouted him and started a brawl

It would actually be an ingenious way of silencing people if its very selective use didn't make it so transparent - another thing that's terrifying iMO

All of this.

Especially the drawing of a line under history part.
For some reason many royalists seem to think that abolishing the monarchy will make history disappear or otherwise cause it to be erased. It won't.

In many ways, we'd be able to appreciate royal history even more because discussion of it, particularly the more recent decades won't (or are less likely to) result in accusations of disrespect.

Indeed. Freedom of speech/right to protest are being eroded by stealth in this country. Monarchists need not be complacent about this, it is only a matter of time before some of them fall foul too.

Anyone with their ear to the ground would know that serious discussions have been happening over the past years about how we want to be governed/what kind of country we would like to be....the future of the monarchy being included in those discussions.

Yet now the Queen has passed there is none of the hoped-for debate; the Establishment has closed ranks, brushed dissenting (even merely concerned and questioning) voices aside despite there being so many of them. Instead they have gone into automatic pilot in declaring and imposing the next Head of State and, insultingly, telling us all how we feel about it.

Total sycophantic nonsense from the BBC about "Queen of Scots" and that the show out in Edinburgh is demonstrative of our love for her.
No.
Surely they can see that if you can be bothered to go and see the coffin you are more likely to have positive feelings about the monarchy? It's not a representative sample for goodness sake.
And I suspect a lot of those attending are simply there to gawk at the Royals, not because they are Monarchists.

Not everyone is English, you know?

Anyway. One can be a patriot, and a republican, and an atheist. Surely this is not hard to understand?

A U.K. with no monarchy would be boring, soulless and grim

Why? The UK has such a rich history and strong institutions other than the monarchy.

I must say I find the poor calibre of royalist arguments in this thread quite disappointing.

@DewinDwl royal arguments are usually pretty poor as there is no convincing argument for giving unparalleled power and privilege to people based on the womb they developed in. 🤷‍♀️

A glittering royal family? absolutely not, they're no better than any of the rest of us. Worse in fact. Greedy, entitled, conniving, corrupt, self serving scroungers is how I see them.

@TarasHarp55 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Ireland doesn't have a monarchy and it's far from souless and grim. As if the pampered royals make it fun. Just the thought of rich pampered elites making it less grim is hilarious. Dressing up in fancy clothes now and then means nothing.

I bet this would never be a question on Question Time.

It can't even be debated in Parliament

The royal family has no power and less privilege than the many who are as rich or richer than them. Rishi Sunak has more de facto power and privilege than they do. You obviously have no concept of what our constitutional monarchy consists of and are confusing it with cartoon versions of Queens like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.

I'm no fan of Sunak but I do think the critical thing to remember is that Rishi Sunak was elected to his seat and has not automatically been made the head of state by some archaic, "divine right" based on an accident of birth.

People are (rightly) up in arms about his and his wife's tax avoidance, whereas royalists are actively sympathetic and supportive of the monarchy's tax exemptions.

Why is it that we're always directed to billionaires when we're discussing the monarchy's wealth. The argument isn't, "well the royal family's vast wealth and privilege are okay because billionaires exist.

And Trump/Johnson/Russia/China are always mentioned in regard to a presidential model - as if those are the only available options in the absence of a monarchy.

It is only a matter of time before someone argues that the royal family aren't privileged.

My point is not just that Rishi Sunak (and all MPs) have more power than the Queen…which they do..but also that it’s power she could never have because the royal family are literally prohibited from standing for election. He (and all of we citizens) have the privilege to stand for election in order to acquire real political power, a privilege the Queen did not have.

Did you know that unlike Rishi Sunak and his wife, the Queen had been paying income tax on all her income? The only exemption she gets for being Queen is from IHT on any of her privately owned assets going from her to the next monarch. Which really, isn’t that special as any of us could do the same by establishing a trust and then living for 7yrs….

What happens if Charles is not nice with managing his staff. Who is the line manager above him that gives him a bollocking and sends him for 180 degree feedback training?

He isn't 'nice' at managing staff. His 'right hand man' servant Michael Fawcett was repeatedly accused of bullying other staff members. He resigned and within a week was reinstated and promoted. It all goes downhill from there

Remind me long the queen had been on the throne when she graciously decided to joun the rest if us in paying tax? Was it befire or after she tried to get taxpayers to cough up for repairs to her private home and applied for the winter fuel allowance?