Forum menu
STW isn’t representative of the British population as a whole.
this is the most sensible thing i have read on here in at least 10 years. brilliant.
I don’t understand why the royal hearse doesn’t have any license plates,
Queens exempt from having number plates, perk of the job.
and speed limits thinking about it and er a driving licence 🙂
I say 'exempt' its probably a little bit more weird legally.
IMHO most people don’t see the UK and is governance as something that’s broken and needs fixing. STW isn’t representative of the British population as a whole.
I agree. It's the status quo and unless it's challenged it stays that way.
Any kind of radical change is unthinkable, until it's not.
Brexit is a recent example of a complete non-issue. Something that only a tiny minority cared about which was turned into an issue that dominated British politics and led to a societal change.
An older but more relevant example is C19th Chartism which turned a political anorak topic (voting reforms) into a major working-class movement.
Polling currently suggests around two thirds of people under 50 do not support the monarchy, so it wouldn't be a bad place to start.
oldenough
Free MemberIMHO most people don’t see the UK and is governance as something that’s broken and needs fixing.
Absolutely. But, that doesn't mean it's not broken and doesn't need fixing or that efforts to change it can't work. Hardly any big changes start out from "most people want this" tbh- I mean, most people don't want the current government, yet we have it.
Lately I think there's a lot of people that can see it's not working but don't really know what the alternatives might be, how it could be changed, etc. That's the people that probably matter more than the people like me who already know it's broken and needs fixing. It's the difference between getting it started and getting it done.
I don’t understand why the royal hearse doesn’t have any license plates,
Queens exempt from having number plates, perk of the job.
and speed limits thinking about it and er a driving licence 🙂
Yeah but she wasn't driving it!
Queens exempt from having number plates, perk of the job.
I say ‘exempt’ its probably a little bit more weird legally.
I'd say its a little simpler. She's dead.
Also, it was technically on a closed road.
As history has shown, it has the potential to be an effective political tool for achieving change.
And history has also shown that an established monarchy isn't abolished without some sort of serious crises just because people have decided that there is a better way of doing things.
Sure change occurs when a monarchy is abolished but that is invariably because the society is in a crises and change is deemed as a means of resolving the crises.
I know many on stw believe that we are in a crisis situation at the present but as a society the UK is not currently experiencing a crisis. There is profund political stability - governments last for many years without collapse, there is currently no social unrest, law and order is firmly maintained - no rioting, the economy has survived much worse crises than at the present, no mass unemployment, no general strikes, no political assassinations.
Obviously things might change at some point but if you feel now is good time to convince voters that the monarchy should be abolished you've got your work cut out.
If you want to go for something radical I reckon that you might have better luck arguing for the common ownership of the utilities, something which might actually have a positive effect on people's lives and is perfectly achievable under a monarchy.
an established monarchy isn’t abolished without some sort of serious crises just because people have decided that there is a better way of doing things.
Isn't that basically what Barbados did? Just figured Rihanna was a better draw than Liz and voted her off the island. No crisis, no drama.
Isn’t that basically what Barbados did? Just figured Rihanna was a better draw than Liz and voted her off the island. No crisis, no drama.
But they didn't abolish the monarchy, they just left the Commonwealth.
Isn’t that basically what Barbados did?
Well if you think that Barbados removing the role of foreign head of state is the same as nations such as France, Germany, and Russia, abolishing their monarchy then, yes, that's what Barbados basically did.
But they didn’t abolish the monarchy, they just left the Commonwealth.
No they remain a member of the Commonwealth. Bizarrely Mozambique is a member of the Commonwealth despite never having been a under British control and instead was previously a Portuguese colony.
Sure change occurs when a monarchy is abolished but that is invariably because the society is in a crises and change is deemed as a means of resolving the crises
I’d say its a little simpler. She’s dead.
minor technicality,anyway she would have authorised it to drive on ‘her’ roads your usual plates/driving licences are issued on her behalf.
I’m not sure writing a ticket for no plates would be a good career move 🙂
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole thing:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/20/queen-anger-monarchy-preserving-inequity
There is profund political stability – governments last for many years without collapse, there is currently no social unrest, law and order is firmly maintained –
A profoundly stable governance is not evidenced by a bi-annual change in Prime Minister and subsequent change in ministerial responsibilities/representatives.
Yes, but the PMs all come from the same party. In any case the system itself is stable. Transfer of power has been according to the law & there has been no social disruption because of it.
The UK government is completely stable. It can easily win votes of confidence. There is currently no political crisis in the UK.
Everything’s alright, it’s OK, it’s fine.
This would suggest that the definition of the adjective stable used above is not one that is currently in use. The governing party is in no way stable, a stable party would not change its leader bi-annually. The party may know what it wants but doesn't know how to achieve this without more internal carnage.
The UK government is completely stable.
I don't think that's relevant.
Changes don't just happen when there's some big crisis.
They are usually the result of grindingly long campaigns which start out with people promoting something that's unpopular.
The UK government is completely stable. It can easily win votes of confidence. There is currently no political crisis in the UK.
Nah mate, Strong and Stable was 2 PM's ago.
England ( and Wales) Ernie not the uk
NI has no functioing devolved parliament and so horrible fudges to keep institutions functioning
In Scotland we have a massive democratic defict and half the country wants radical change.
Changes don’t just happen when there’s some big crisis.
No of course not. But big changes happen when there are big crises.
a stable party would not change its leader bi-annually.
Wait until you find out how many leaders the Labour Party and LibDems together have had in the last 7 years.
But yeah if the Tories sack Liz Truss, as they very likely might, who knows, perhaps the call for the abolition of the monarchy will become unstoppable.
The UK government is completely stable.
Methinks they are really not.
State of NHS/Getting Ambulances/appointments for Doctors/Dentists etc and the cost of living.
I think they are in a difficult place,these are things which will really cause things to kick off if they aren't fixed.
Monarchy aren't going anywhere thou, more likely to see the death penalty come back rather than the abolition of the monarchy.
Now that we have a king, these sorts of events will all take much longer, since he can only move along the floor one square at a time.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/tgKfjWHV/52371212393-94d1575ba6-z.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/tgKfjWHV/52371212393-94d1575ba6-z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I suppose we could just bribe him with a castle to hurry him along.
Well if you think that Barbados removing the role of foreign head of state is the same as nations such as France, Germany, and Russia, abolishing their monarchy then, yes, that’s what Barbados basically did.
What Barbados did was say someone with no traceable genetic link to the people, who claims to be have been appointed by some god to lord over them to sod off.
So yes, that's pretty much the same thing, it's just more obvious due to skin colour but that's basically what the monarchy is, a bunch of inbreds that believe they are genetically superior to the plebs and god has put them in charge because they are genetically superior.
Well if you think that Barbados removing the role of foreign head of state is the same as nations such as France, Germany, and Russia, abolishing their monarchy then, yes, that’s what Barbados basically did.
Germany isn't a great example of a nation getting rid of their royal family. To start with, they didn't have a single royal family and had only been a unified country for a few decades. There was also a very obvious reason why the various kings, kaisers and dukes were forced out, late in 1918. Germany hasn't done badly without a monarchy since then, albeit with a blip a few years later. 😀
There was a lot of media about Prince Louis not being at the funeral, assumption being that this was because he is so young and is also a bit of a hooligan. I assume it was also a 'last man standing' type arrangement.
On that basis, I am slightly gutted the rest of the family and heirs didn't get wiped out. Whilst a massive explosion killing all of the royal family and worlds heads of states would be terrible, a King Louis reign could be a complete riot!
German royal families seem to be fairly successful...
Founded in 1826 by Ernest Anton
The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (German: Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha) is a European Royal House. It takes its name from its oldest domain, the Ernestine duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, its members later sat on the thrones of the United Kingdom and its realms, Belgium, Portugal, Bulgaria, and Mexico.
So yes, that’s pretty much the same thing, it’s just more obvious due to skin colour but that’s basically what the monarchy is
How do you propose that the UK gets over this problem?
As one of my pals pointed out the female line is more British and maternity is certain but paternity is very much not certain 🤣
Fair play, Charles did well to raise Harry as his own...
Now that we have a king, these sorts of events will all take much longer, since he can only move along the floor one square at a time.
Just don't ask what moves he was making with the bishop...
https://twitter.com/timesscotland/status/1022896908896010246
German royal families seem to be fairly successful…
Good point. 😀
How do you propose that the UK gets over this problem?
Abolition of all hereditary titles.
Referendum on whatshould replace it for say *25yrs (followed by a further referendum in 25yrs)
Definition of the rule and laws, most importantly the one on how we get rid of anyone in that position
Election of whatever replaces it
*25 yrs being a stable length of time but it could be 10 or 25 but more than one government term ... it doesn't mean one person for 25yrs but say a referendum decided an elected president was to replace it then we should try and give that a go for 25yrs and start defining the position during that time.
**There a a whole load of choices as to what replaces it... who elects the person or body etc.
tj
As one of my pals pointed out the female line is more British and maternity is certain but paternity is very much not certain 🤣
Frankly I don't care if they are "genetically british" or not however that might even be defined.
For someone gives a shit about the everyday people and has demonstrated an ability to make even the Tory's listen and change policies we could do far worse than someone like Marcus Rashford
How do you propose that the UK gets over this problem?
Abolition of all hereditary titles.
Referendum on whatshould replace it for say *25yrs (followed by a further referendum in 25yrs)
Definition of the rule and laws, most importantly the one on how we get rid of anyone in that position
Election of whatever replaces it
You said that Barbadians were able to remove the monarchy as head of state because it is : more obvious due to skin colour but that’s basically what the monarchy is, a bunch of inbreds that believe they are genetically superior to the plebs and god has put them in charge because they are genetically superior.
I am asking how do you propose to get over the obvious problem that most people in the UK have the same skin colour as the head of state? How are you going to enlighten them? How are you going to convince them of the huge benefits of abolishing the monarchy and how it will enhance their lives?
Wait, what, so besides being members of the Royal Household, the whips email the monarch daily with gossip!!
https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1570866655483539456
Huh...
https://twitter.com/mi6rogue/status/1545869633135300609
But they didn’t abolish the monarchy, they just left the Commonwealth.
They abolished their monarchy and became a republic within the commonwealth.
Well if you think that Barbados removing the role of foreign head of state is the same as nations such as France, Germany, and Russia, abolishing their monarchy then, yes, that’s what Barbados basically did.
I don't and didn't make that comparison. Barbados removed 'their' monarch. They didn't remove her in the Louis the XVI sense, that would be a crime,and they couldn't abolish the monarchy anywhere outside Barbados but by a slow non-crisis campaign they abolished the monarchy that ruled over Barbados. So it can be done. Major crisis tends to lead to larger change but it illustrates the counter idea that an established monarchy can only be removed by a major crisis. They just decided they wanted to try a different way.
The Uk would have a much tougher time - a significant proportion of the population want to keep it, and there are some fairly entrenched interests in maintaining it. It could be done. See also Brexit. (lobs grenade, runs)
28 Million watched in the UK apparently.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-62966616
Thought it would be more to be honest, bearing in mind most of you were off work and there was literally nothing else to watch (on terrestrial). Even out of a sense of ghoulishness or a 'moment in history' rather than as a true blue monarchist.
Plenty of things to do other than watching TV.
Was quite surprised by the figures for the queue, which was apparently a bit over 250,000... sounds like a lot, until you realize that over 321,000 people came to pay respects to Churchill, when the population was significantly lower, with less available transport.
Both of those figures are dwarfed by the number that marched against the Iraq war, in London alone it was estimated to be around 1,000,000
So it can be done.
Of course it can be done, there has never been any doubt about that. The question is whether it is likely to happen outside a serious crises and upheavals. I would argue no, it isn't likely, if you look at history.
Barbados is a red herring, even you said, quote, "Barbados removed ‘their’ monarch", I assume that you used apostrophes in 'their' because QE2 wasn't really their monarch. Presumably she didn't have Barbadian nationality and she certainly didn't live there.
Barbados simply got rid of an anomaly which was a hangover from pre-independence days and which many other countries have decided to keep. It had absolutely zero effect on the British monarch. It isn't really particularly comparable with a British monarch living in Great Britain and all the upheavals which the abolition of the monarchy in the UK would cause.
Again, it is perfectly possible for the UK monarchy to be abolished because the majority of people believe that doing so would be a good idea. But currently that looks highly unlikely, and as the consequences of abolition would be so insignificant, and there are so many more pressing problems to deal with which could actually enhance people's lives, that pursuing it is a pointless exercise IMHO.
Part of the problem for republicans is that over a period of 70 years Mrs Windsor did very little to screw up and was sufficiently committed to her role to gain widespread respect, even from some republicans as the first post on this thread and the thread's title suggests, I think it is highly unlikely that the new King will match that although I doubt that he will behave in the manner that will create a crisis and undermine the monarchy. But you never know.
Both of those figures are dwarfed by the number that marched against the Iraq war, in London alone it was estimated to be around 1,000,000
& those figures are compatible in what sense?
It’s like saying 1 million people visited *somewhere* last year but only 250,000 did *something else*
Part of the problem for republicans is that over a period of 70 years Mrs Windsor did very little to screw up and was sufficiently committed to her role to gain widespread respect, even from some republicans as the first post on this thread and the thread’s title suggests, I think it is highly unlikely that the new King will match that although I doubt that he will behave in the manner that will create a crisis and undermine the monarchy. But you never know.
I think the problems are more fundamental for the monarchy and it doesn't particularly matter what an individual does. It faces a situation that's similar to organised religion at the start of the C20th.
It's a belief system that upcoming generations are simply less inclined to believe in. For lots of complex reasons but mostly just because society has changed.
Suppose they aren't entirely comparable; after all, the Iraq protest was only 1 day, compared to 4 days of folks queuing to see a coffin surrounded by political blackmailers in fancy threads...
https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1570869075076853760
I doubt that he will behave in the manner that will create a crisis and undermine the monarchy. But you never know.”
He already has. He’s a divorcee who married another divorcee. At the time, many commentators argued he was not fit to become king and by default head of the CofE. Remember Edward VIII abdicated for that reason.
Suppose they aren’t entirely comparable; after all, the Iraq protest was only 1 day, compared to 4 days of folks queuing to see a coffin surrounded by political blackmailers in fancy threads…
Disingenuous to say the least, but you know that.
Suppose they aren’t entirely comparable; after all, the Iraq protest was only 1 day, compared to 4 days of folks queuing
Correct. Although still no comparison.
Inextricably linked though.
War, death, funeral.
This thread has become increasingly tedious and pointless.
Time for one of the prolific posters to start new one - what future, if any, for the UK monarchy?
Rev Churchill:
But that was a shorter line, with a wait of only a couple of hours, and many people went through multiple times.
(Washington Post)
It just shows that the queue moved faster and that there was no other way to see him {i.e. internet/TV}.
Numbers are not comparable.
Numbers are not comparable.
Haha, quality, the source you used to provide that information is only providing that information in the context of a comparison...
Notice they mention Guinness World Records; what links Julian Lewis, chair of the Intelligence and Security committee of Parliament, to Norris McWhirter?
And yes, it is on topic; after all, the Queen was #1 (which will now be Charles) when it came to intelligence reports; she was privy to information deemed too sensitive for the cabinet...
https://twitter.com/GCHQ/status/1567949849164713984
Barbados removed ‘their’ monarch”, I assume that you used apostrophes in ‘their’ because QE2 wasn’t really their monarch.
More to distinguish the Queen as she was to them vs 'the monarchy' as commonly used to mean the Royals in general in the UK.
She was their Monarch. She was the Monarch of Canada too. They voted her out.
What I remember most from history is the long slow burn of inequality, lack of representation, etc leading to a sudden defenestration of the Ruler, from America to Russia and all points in between. The end might have been a crisis but it was a long time coming. Food for thought given where we are now.
I think there is a bit of rose tinting going on. She was the ultimate diplomat, skilled in manouvering public opinion. She also quietly exempted herself from nearly 200 laws, including ones that would have protected those in her employ. She got previews of any act that might affect her and the opportunity to influence same. She exempted herself from any form of taxation and took money from the public purse. All things I think can be questioned and changed without actually getting rid of then Monarchy
So basically Mrs Windsor behaved like the rest of the ruling class - skilled in manoeuvring public opinion they also look after their own interests and wealth.
Anyone who thinks abolishing the monarchy and leaving the system intact represents a significant change for ordinary people is deluding themselves.
Telling the people that much of the nation's vast wealth might be in the hands of a few but that's okay because the head of state is elected by them is just a cynical attempt to manipulate and manage public opinion, and legitimise and justify inequality.
And anyone who thinks that the system is fundamentally sound and only needs a bit of meaningless tinkering is indeed wearing their rose-tinted specs.
So basically Mrs Windsor behaved like the rest of the ruling class – skilled in manoeuvring public opinion they also look after their own interests and wealth
TBH I take my hat off to who came up with the concept of ‘service’ and ‘serving you’.
Being rich and wealthy but making you grateful for it.
It’s a bit like ‘The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist’.
One simple but powerful way people can show opposition to the monarchy is to stop using all the titles.
Just use their names - Charles Windsor, William Windsor etc.
Same with all the daft peerage titles: Lords, viscounts, baronets, earls, marquesses etc.
Barbados is a red herring, even you said, quote, “Barbados removed ‘their’ monarch”, I assume that you used apostrophes in ‘their’ because QE2 wasn’t really their monarch. Presumably she didn’t have Barbadian nationality and she certainly didn’t live there.
Barbados simply got rid of an anomaly which was a hangover from pre-independence days and which many other countries have decided to keep. It had absolutely zero effect on the British monarch. It isn’t really particularly comparable with a British monarch living in Great Britain and all the upheavals which the abolition of the monarchy in the UK would cause.
This isn’t quite right. The Queen was Barbados head of state by virtue of the colonial commonwealth and had absolute power. Although of course she didn’t intervene, the Barbados PM ultimately reported to the queen. Barbados is now an independent republic and has its own power independent of the United Kingdom, and its monarchy is removed from its title of head of state and has no power over Barbados. Sure, it’s had a limited affect on Barbados as a society other than to remove colonial influence and tradition. Many symbols of that E.g. Nelsons column in Barbados have been removed and replaced with local symbols for example statues of recognised Barbadians.
You said that Barbadians were able to remove the monarchy as head of state because it is : more obvious due to skin colour but that’s basically what the monarchy is, a bunch of inbreds that believe they are genetically superior to the plebs and god has put them in charge because they are genetically superior.
No I just said it's more obvious... it's an easy example people can see.
I am asking how do you propose to get over the obvious problem that most people in the UK have the same skin colour as the head of state? How are you going to enlighten them? How are you going to convince them of the huge benefits of abolishing the monarchy and how it will enhance their lives?
Having the same skin colour is not a problem nor is it really important of itself. What is important is that people recognise they are being treated as sub-humans by a system headed by the monarchy in the same way Barbadians were.
If we look at that system then its rather clear that for example Rees-Mogg views himself and acts as being bred onto that ladder of genetic superiority by the will of god and those who for example lived in Grenfell weren't but to extend that into the wider context is that Rees-Mogg is just one of many clinging to the genetic superiority that has been given to them by god and their station in lives at the expense of the people.
Just to be clear the Governor general was appointed by the Queen (directly) and this is the oath ... they quite literally had no compunction or reason to serve the people .. their sole duty was to represent the Queen.
I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, in the office of Governor-General. So help me God.
TBH I take my hat off to who came up with the concept of ‘service’ and ‘serving you’.
Being rich and wealthy but making you grateful for it.
There's a quote, which I can't find, about the biggest con that the ruling classes ever perpetrated was to persuade working people that there is a nobility in working. Or something along those lines.
She was their Monarch. She was the Monarch of Canada too. They voted her out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada
Quick google of 'Queen Canada' came up with this article about the wider implications for the Commonwealth:
Many Americans may not realize it, but Canada is still tied to the British monarchy. Queen Elizabeth served as Canada’s head of state for nearly half of its time as a country, and remained a popular figure among Canadians right up until her death on Sept. 8 at age 96.
Her popularity, however, did not translate to the monarchy itself. Fifty-eight percent of Canadians polled by Ipsos just a few days after the queen’s death said the time had come for Canada to hold a referendum on ending its formal ties to the British throne.
It’s not just the Canadians who are rethinking their connection to the crown. The queen’s death also raises questions about the future of the Commonwealth, an association of 56 countries that include the 14 in which the British monarch remains their head of state. Calls for them to break away and form a republic are likely to spread now that the queen’s reign has ended and her eldest son, King Charles III, has ascended to the throne, analysts said.
As regards Canada, could the attrocities carried out in residential schools be a factor in seeking independence?
‘Cultural genocide’: the shameful history of Canada’s residential schools – mapped
In May, Canadians were shocked at the discovery of the remains of 215 children at the site of a former school in British Columbia. The bodies belonged to Indigenous children, some believed to be as young as three years old, who went through Canada’s state-sponsored “residential school” system. The schools, scattered across the country, were aimed at eradicating the culture and languages of the country’s Indigenous populations.
For most of the 20th Century, at least 139 residential schools were run by Catholic, Anglican and United Churches, with financial support from the federal government.
An estimated 150,000 Indigenous children attended. They were prohibited from speaking their native languages and had to adopt their school's religious denomination. Many were beaten, verbally and sexually abused, and thousands died from disease, neglect and suicide.
As regards Canada, could the attrocities carried out in residential schools be a factor in seeking independence?
Canada is an independent country. Are you suggesting that Canada's education system isn't independent and that there was a tenuous link between the residential schools and Mrs Windsor?
Maybe not specifically but perhaps with a nod to the past where a lot of HRH appeal lies in the links with 'the good old days' that it's turns out weren't that good really.
Similarly what's the point of a head of state that appears to have ignored/been unaware of awful behaviour on their watch? Sure, it's elected politicians who are ultimately to blame but they can be voted out.
As regards Canada, could the attrocities carried out in residential schools be a factor in seeking independence?
That's either poorly worded or rhetorical?
Obviously it is "a factor", that doesn't make it a "significant factor" throughout the population though.
If anything I think it's an illustration that the monarchy is founded on genetic superiority and a ladder from the monarch down (in this case to the first nations)... and most Canadians are realising they themselves are way down the rungs of that ladder.
If anything I think overall this is quite similar the the Black Adder examples .. where previously people in the system felt more like Cpt. Darling where sycophantic brown nosing servility would give their life some trivial amount of value above stopping a bullet because they are "obviously better bred" than Pvt. Baldrick.
I think they are simply now taking Cpt. Blackadders knowledge that their life or thousands are worth less than a Corgi or horse.
As regards Canada, could the attrocities [sic] carried out in residential schools be a factor in seeking independence?
I've never heard any of my Canadian relatives link residential schools to the monarchy. I think most Canadians sole link to the Monarchy is that her face is on the $20 note. Having said that the coverage on the TV news on the Queen's death while I was out there was (like the BBC) all day on some channels, I met a Canadian couple coming over to the UK just to stand in the queue, the flags on municipal buildings (like schools) were at half mast, and I spoke with a cop who was wearing a black armband.
It would be interesting to see where Ipsos carried out their polling of Canadians and the monarchy, Ontario and Quebec have between them something like 60% of the population and Quebec (for obvious reasons) isn't overly fond of the Queen.
Canada is an independent country
Not sure where you got the idea Canada is an independent country...
Besides being head of state, the monarch is also commander in chief of armed forces etc etc
Not to mention Supreme Governor of the Church of England, thus presiding over the entire Anglican Communion.
They seem to be the main factors involved in requests for an apology for the cultural genocide orchestrated via residential schools;
the Queen was one of the only leaders who swerved an apology...
Since the matter was not put to rest, calls are now being made for Charles to apologise.