Trooping the colour booing

[theresalighttofindyou]

AIBU to think this was well deserved?

Kate can glower at people as much as she wants but the monarchy is a rotten institution and people are getting more and more annoyed by it

@Prombles It amused me when Charles married Camilla and someone was selling 'mug conversion kits' - a transfer of Camilla and the new wedding date to stick on the 1981 mugs.

I've never heard of this before - how tacky! Somehow encapsulates a very, tawdry tale.

@IsawwhatIsaw
I asked my 20s DCs, they said the vast majority , maybe around 20 people. were completely uninterested. One or two were in favour .
I think they are irrelevant and their luxurious lifestyles are offensive given how many people now have to live in the UK

I’ll try my question on you;
Since they are so unpopular, do you think it would be a vote winner for political parties to put removal of royal family in their manifesto for the next election?

Part of it is the fact they have generational wealth (plundered), income from massive property portfolios and charging the likes of the NHS to use their warehouses along side private renters (though their grifting family memebers who are rich in their own rights pay nothing) etc, and public funding to the tune of 139.9 mil.

They could make do with one of the three. The greed is vulgar.

Even now I understand that Freedom of Information requests are turned down to investigative writers. I know it may be different now that the police are examining Andrew's activities. I wonder what AMB and Fergie did with their vast amounts of money from family, Epstein, the Azerbaijani business man that paid over the odds for their house?

I would start by proposing to massively trim down assets- look at how some of these castles and palaces might be better used? It is not 1870 any more.

To all the anti monarchists out there - you realise we'd just get Tony and Cherie Blair instead?

It's not like there would just be nothing.

Try a different argument. Why always suggest the worst option?
At least we have the option to vote them out. Unlike say getting King Andrew. …which we nearly did.

Try a different argument. Why always suggest the worst option

Who would you like?

I think it would be really hard for them to do that given that every MP is compelled to swear allegiance to the monarch before they can even sit in parliament. It is strictly mandatory (if they don't swear the oath they pay the fine and the seat is legally declared vacant).

It was only very recently that a member of the RF was even discussed let alone criticised in Parliament, breaking with long standing convention - Andrew. And he wasn't a Prince any more at the time.

And then there is the Royal propaganda which has been pumped out to the public for years & decades, and the reluctance to publish anything remotely critical of them. That so many people dislike the monarchy despite the relentless propaganda trying to persuade them otherwise, tells its own story.

Given all these factors, how exactly would a political party go about campaigning to end the monarchy and be assured of a fair and reasonable process?

Given all these factors, how exactly would a political party go about campaigning to end the monarchy and be assured of a fair and reasonable process.

They could put in their manifesto that they will bring an act of parliament to remove the royal family. If enough people think this is a good idea then the party proposing it will get a lot of votes.
Alternatively if a big enough crowd of rioters stormed the palace then they would succeed - it’s not as if that hasn’t happened before to both royal families and governments.

@38thparallel
maybe Marcus Rashford
JK Rowling.
Judy Dench…
David Olusoga?
point is it would be a vote . For a finite time in office

@Futurehappiness And then there is the Royal propaganda which has been pumped out to the public for years & decades, and the reluctance to publish anything remotely critical of them.

The Buckingham Palace lawyers always shut down an question. When Andrew/Giuffre was raised 15 years ago the press was threatened with a case of defamation. The day following the public breaking of the Epstein scandal - the Queen appointed him Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George. A massive reward and honour for Andrew.

I wonder what AMB and Fergie did with their vast amounts of money from family, Epstein, the Azerbaijani business man that paid over the odds for their house?

While Ferg appears to have spaffed millions (yet still amazingly is apparently hiding out in exclusive enclaves. How?) I am convinced MW still has millions hidden away.

See his enthusiastic use of the BofE shell company created to hide the extent of royal wealth from the nosy plebs (and oh look. There's C3 up to his snout in it too):

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/26/prince-andrew-held-investments-in-shell-company-set-up-to-keep-holdings-secret

As the article notes, particularly of interest given it running alongside his time as TE.

I'd like to see a royal on any list of contenders.

Yes, why not. I wouldn’t vote for them myself, but it should be a fair vote with various options.

I wonder what AMB and Fergie did with their vast amounts of money

Sorry, I got confused with Andy Burnham - AMW, of course!

Yes. Let’s have the economy version that seems to work well in multiple other European countries, if we have to have one at all.

Again for those who don’t understand how elected heads of state are different to inherited titles; a) we’d only get President Blair if the majority of the country chose him and b) we’d have a chance to pick someone else after 4-5 years. The late Queen Elizabeth was the monarch for 70 years, nearly 71, it took her dying to replace her and then we had no choice who she was replaced with. That she did an ok job (not perfect) doesn’t change the fact we had no choice and without a doubt there were better candidates over the decades.

I'm fairly sure they were being sold ironically/as a joke item.

There was talk at the time of memorabilia that bore the original date, 8 April, being 'worth something' after the date was changed to 9 April to allow Charles to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II, but I don't know whether that's true.

Darling I'm not having a tantrum, I'm not protesting the royals I'm out living my life! I'm not jealous of other people I've got better things to be doing. If they want my 1p in tax for the royals they are welcome to it. I pay more for scroungers that don't put a penny into the economy and don't represent our country on the world stage. Facts are not an insult, it's annoyed you because it does not support your argument to get rid of the monarchy. You'd like to cut off your nose (or rather other people's who would lose jobs) to spite your face just because your jealous. Get a life. What you think is irrelevant to me too sweet pea.

The irony here is remarkable.

I calmly questioned a statistic, explained why it doesn't prove the point you think it proves, and provided examples of successful countries without monarchies.

In response you've accused me of being jealous, wanting people to lose their jobs, hating the Royals, supporting scroungers, cutting off my nose to spite my face, and now you've finished with "sweet pea".

That's quite an emotional journey for someone insisting they aren't having a tantrum.

The problem is that none of it addresses what I actually said.

The fact remains that the £1.7 billion figure, even if accepted at face value, does not demonstrate that tourists would stop visiting Britain without a monarchy. France attracts more tourists than we do without one. People visit countries for history, architecture, culture, museums and heritage, not because a hereditary head of state currently occupies a palace.

And no, disagreeing with you isn't jealousy. It's just disagreement.

You'll notice I'm still discussing the argument. You're still discussing the people making it.

That usually happens when someone is struggling to defend their position.

I can think of so many people who would be better that the royals! They really are super dull low achieving and avaricious.

Or even better have it on a 5 years random
rotation. That would be awesome!

I think Fergie is the biggest scrounger there is, no?!!
The real scroungers are those at the top who don't pay taxes!!
Benefits are a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money stolen at the top!
You're looking in the wrong place if you want to blame someone...
Many people on benefits do so because they are disabled and unable to work so I'm offended by your disgusting blanket term of 'scroungers' (and, no, I've never claimed benefits...)

Do you mean like jury duty? You just get a call up for monarch duty for a year or so? “Sorry Linda, you’ll have to find someone else cover my shifts, I’ve got to go host a state banquet.” That would be fabulous!

You have just made yourself look a bit silly haven’t you.
Our benefit cost is 333 BILLION
the total cost for the entire royal family is 500 million.