To think the palace should issue a statement condemning Clarkson's comments?

[Reindeersnooker]

I'm all for their dignified silence on everything else. I don't trust Harry or Megan. But Jeremy Clarkson's comments are horrific and were made in Britain against a woman who has become a member of their family.

NOT issuing a statement sends out such a hurtful message and indicates that anything can be said about her, for all they care. Even the MPs have managed to put something on paper.

It's clear that Harry will be beyond hurt if they do nothing and this time he'd have a point, IMO. Each comment like this published in the press erodes the boundaries for online trolls. If I was Meghan, I wouldn't feel I could return to the UK as it's clear the normal rules don't apply to her. What will her children think of Britain when they grow up and become aware of these articles? Won't they be likely to wonder how the palace responded? While it makes no sense to try and placate Harry generally, letting this play out without one word of censure to the press seems needlessly provocative.

It wouldn't be difficult to issue a statement saying something to the effect of "We stand against bullying and hate speech..." Two lines to indicate they see it and it's not ok.

Or not?

'There is absolutely no threat of 'upheaval ' '

In your opinion. You do have a bit of a sneery attitude, and obviously look down on anyone who quite likes living in a constitutional monarchy. If you want that to change, it might be an idea to try and understand why some people don't want a republic.

Interesting. I agree. I read somewhere that it would take 20 years to actually fully dispense of the RF from start to finish.
It certainly won't be iny lifetime that's for sure. I just think they will slowly become redundant and more irrelevant and we'll barely notice for a long while. Reforming the constitutional laws will be a long process.
I do think it will happen but a long time away

I can’t see it happening at all. Unpicking all the aspects of our society that are entwined with the monarchy make Brexit look like a walk in the park, no sane politician would even contemplate it. I can see the British model becoming much more like European/Scandinavian monarchies.

The king is there to support all Britons, just as he is there to support all nations Britain has colonised and who still retain him as symbolic head of their governments. That means supporting ‘all’.

One of his family’s members is being dehumanised in the British press -a woman who is also black. If he can’t come out in support of her, his own daughter in law, it leaves people wondering who else he will not champion. If he refuses to champion all but the safest, most complacent of his subjects, then what point is he? It’s continuity, but of what?

How is it a big deal to unpick? Apart from their ability to change laws to benefit themselves, everything else is symbolic. Who cares if a Monarch opens parliament or not? Who cares if the PM meets weekly with a Monarch or not? None of this matters.

Unpicking Brexit is a nightmare as there are so many laws that need to be rewritten and it affects our trade and relationship with so many nations. To suggest abolishing the Monarchy is harder is madness.

Do you mean the Commonwealth? ALA an organisation that nations hugely benefit from and volunteer to be part of??

Many people do care. You may be surprised to read you don’t speak to everyone

In your opinion. To some people it does matter. It's like Brexit, and Scottish independence which I believe you're in favour of, if you don't at least try and understand where the 'other side' is coming from, all that'll happen is division and conflict.

The judicial system, the civil service, the armed forces, parliament are all entwined with the monarchy. It would take for ever, an army of administrators and a vast amount of money to unpack and rearrange it all. That’s why other countries maintain their monarchies because removing all those ties is a gargantuan task.

But the tie is symbolic. You just cut the rituals.

@wordler - please forgive the copy and paste but I found your post sensible and it pertains to this thread the direction it's taking:

'First - should we have a constitutional monarch as our head of state in today's world - as in should we continue with hereditary privilege as a form of our government?

Then if no, what should we replace the current system with? And how extensive a replacement system - head of state, house of lords, forming of new parliaments how does it affect the armed forces, church of England, how will all the current Crown properties and assets be used for the new system or redistributed etc. How do we choose the replacement system, Brexit type referendum? Boaty McBoatface type voting select committee? Government of the day? Bi-Partisan department created for the job? Who decides on the new system is going to define its strengths and weaknesses. Will we be in a transition period without a head of state?

Third - How are we going to pay for the transition, and how long should it take? It will need a seriously big budget to fund getting to the bottom of the points above, let alone what needs to happen to rebrand all the money, stamps, government offices and workings, military assets, legal system, new head of state assets.'

You're being daft of course they shouldn't

This, and it's fucking insane that it needs to be spelled out.

You really don’t understand, do you? It’s not just symbolic. The monarchy forms the basis of all our great institutions. It’s much, much more than ritual.

I think antelope is under the impression that changing some wording in a few places here and there will do the trick to unpick the monarchy’s ties.

When that’s really not the case at all.

I don't mind the share at all - it's a really interesting and complex situation and it's good we are at a place in our history where we can examine these issues and start to make some informed decisions about what as a country we want our future government to be about.

I'm very torn - logically I don't believe people are born 'superior' to others and we should earn positions of power based on our talent, temperament and experience.

However.... I love all the pomp and pageantry of the royal court, I love the historical thread of monarchy weaving through our past as a nation, and I'm a sucker for a great Kate coatdress and a cute picture of Princess Charlotte.

But I'm realistic that at some point it will be better for us to move on to a more egalitarian system.

My concern is that we don't just let a different set of rich 1%ers like those in charge of the Tory party define and take advantage of a replacement head of state system and plunder all the crown assets to benefit their friends and family.

We can't blindly burn the current system to the ground because those that benefit from the chaos will be the same old rich *holes who are benefiting from Brexit, Covid, NHS deterioration etc etc

No.

But anyway:

Not all nations that Britain colonised have the British monarch as their head of state, and not all members of the Commonwealth of Nations were British colonies.

And if Australia does become a republic, it still remains part of the Commonwealth if it chooses. There’s a feeling in Australia, that Australia gave more than it ever got from Britain. Australian history backs this feeling.

We actually have other trade/defence agreements that include Britain - most recently AUKUS. Australia also is a member of agreements with other nations, most especially in our Asian Pacific Region. All extremely important to us. We are far away from Britain, and have learned we are looking after ourselves. The Commonwealth is still important to us, but so are a lot of our agreements with other nations.

If he refuses to champion all but the safest, most complacent of his subjects, then what point is he? It’s continuity, but of what?

I agree. But it’s a continuity of smoke and mirrors that they’re honourable and graceful because they never complain and never explain.

I asked a similar challenging question about the ‘defender of faith’ title (most people are clueless that monarchy, justice and faith are interconnected through the coronation oath). Why does the defender of the faith not do any defending or protecting?

Even the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, spoke up when there was a report that Christian persecution 'at near genocide levels'. So why not the one holding the title ‘defender of the faith’?

I was told this was bonkers. Maybe it is. But I don’t think it’s bonkers to ask the question.

So what do you mean then? Because British colonies don’t exist.

Being part of the Commonwealth is optional. Is is having the monarchy as Head of State. No country is forced. Indeed Australia had a referendum on it which saw them keep the Queen as their HoS

I believe I have seen what happens when symbolism, rituals and routines are removed, disrespected and forgotten. It’s not good or better, in my opinion.

You may feel you are above it all and too intelligent for it. I personally am not.

If he refuses to champion all but the safest, most complacent of his subjects, then what point is he?

What?

I also think the monarchy can save itself through its defender of the faith role. It should not be controversial for the monarch to protect faith (it’s right there in the title). Defend the faith and peoples’ faith in the symbolism, rituals and routines will look after themselves.

In my experience, it’s the faithless who think they’re above it all and too intelligent. It’ll be soulless without the symbolism, rituals and routines but the faithless might also argue that souls don’t exist.

Focusing on the faith side of monarchy may save its ass.

I said ‘were British colonies’ not ‘are’.

Where did I say that being part of the Commonwealth of Nations is not optional?

Yes, I don’t need to be informed that Australia voted no to the constructional change for a republic. That referendum was in the 1990s and we voted to remain a constitutional monarchy. The Australian PM at the time was very very conservative, he didn’t want a change, and a lot of the debate got derailed by the use of scare tactics. It’s now 3 decades later and the political scene in Australia, and globally, is very much different.

I understand that posting like this can lead to misunderstandings. But I feel you are really have a go at me because I think Meghan has been treated badly.

I don’t think it’s really about constitutions and change with you, or Commonwealths, because it seems you are pretty confident Britain is unquestionably the best.

I suggest you read my entire post, not just that snippet of it.