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…

Letters show depth of friendship between Prince Charles and sex abuse bishop Peter Ball https://t.co/T56RPejUUz pic.twitter.com/0OBYfM5aeH

— The Times and The Sunday Times Scotland (@timesscotland) July 27, 2018

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!!

Interesting insight on the relationship between HM The Queen and Parliament via the Commons Whips in this podcast 🎙. House of Lords Whips are also members of the Royal Household. (Tiny🧵👇) https://t.co/o15f9cuiRk

— Tina Stowell (@tinastowell) September 16, 2022

Huh…

Just in case you have never seen this list, this was stored in the Tory whips safe to use as leverage to blackmail MPs. It is a snapshot of a scandal among top Tory MPs. #BorisJohnson pic.twitter.com/oZmFr8mV3n

— MI6 ROGUE  (@mi6rogue) July 9, 2022

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…

Here’s a little more information on them. But all this illustrates further the little known or understood relationship between Parliament, the Sovereign, and the Government. https://t.co/BePVkaMxml

— Tina Stowell (@tinastowell) September 16, 2022

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…

Director GCHQ Sir Jeremy Fleming said:
“I, and the whole of GCHQ, extend our deep condolences to the Royal Family.

“Her Majesty The Queen was the longest-serving recipient of GCHQ’s intelligence reports. She has been a constant in all of our lives and will be very much missed.” pic.twitter.com/JnldLgxLtI

— GCHQ (@GCHQ) September 8, 2022

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.

Can we close this thread now?