481–490 of 693 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there's just one British constitution and everyone agrees on it, then it seems like writing it down would be pretty trivial.
> If there's just one British constitution and everyone agrees on it, then it seems like writing it down would be pretty trivial. Honestly, a country can have a universally recognized and respected written constitution without "everyone agree[ing] on it." See United States of America, Constitution Of .
The UK media (not just the BBC) continue to profess "amazement" at the speed and efficiency of the transitioning from a dead monarch to a living one. There's been much speaking in awed tones at the pace of the various proclamations, committee meetings, document signings, etc, as if this pace tells us why we should be impressed. Personally I've found it borderline sickening. If there was a curtain that could have slip…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you just notice you're in a monarchy? Have you never seen parliament open? You missed prorogation with the silly Black Rod nonsense? I'm not sure how you can characterize this as some creeky system that's just showing its face now lol it's built into so much of your government, multiple times a year, including one extremely high profile case (the prorogation) only a few months ago. Honestly, be grateful. I watch…
My Jr High history teacher in TX was apparently a royalist, said the revolutionaries were just a bunch of whiners. The older I get, the more I agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this, it's not like the king of england has any real power. I know it's a waste of tax money but the US governments wastes tax money all day long too, as do all governments on pork projects and subsidies.
Au contraire. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-conse... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-... "Queen’s consent is a procedural rule, internal to the workings of parliament and of unclear origins, which requires the monarch’s consent to be obtained for certain types of legislation – before they can be presented for final approval by either house of parliament." Also note…
It's just a courtesy to save face for the Monarchy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is because humans have an irrational tendency towards sycophancy. This was true throughout both the Obama and Trump administrations and before them. Better to direct that impulse towards a dignified institution that does nothing but attract tourists and occasionally signal society’s values than towards something that tries to have efficient and lethal decision-making power.
Wait, is this satire? Surely we should resist our less productive qualities, like sycophancy. Not try to channel it to some "worthy cause".
I don’t see how your view isn’t personally exhausting. And I don’t see what’s so bad about trying to channel our less productive qualities to better ends than letting them run wild and wishing they didn’t exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing about having a monarch as the head of state that requires so much ceremony and attention. We could stop putting the king on currency, not have official periods of mourning, relegate news about the royal to the tabloids etc. without making any changes to how the government is structured.
I am entertained that your complaint is about the media instead of the ridiculousness of the UK having a royal family in 2022. Personally, I like it as a humiliating reminder of the contradictions of liberalism and the ruling class.
They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though. They are being arrested for being rude about it. Was the fella on radio 4 who stated to the entire nation that ‘King Charles and his family should be put in a council house and that the Monarchy should be abolished’ arrested? No. If you are going to attend a funeral, any funeral, be it the Queen’s or anyone else’s and hurl abuse or hold up signs with obscenit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard that many times but I've always wondered whether is is a net positive given all the tax spending that goes towards the royal family. I guess we'll never know since it's impossible to tell exactly how much tourism is in part based on the queen/king/monarchy sentiment.
It ignores the fact that the royal family owns a tremendous amount of assets that are not directly used in tourism or used by the state. And that they live off those taxes and spending. If the UK abolished the monarchy, tourism attractions like Westminster and the Crown Jewels would still exist
It's peanuts in the scheme of things. The royal family aren't even that rich amongst the billion class in the US.
The UK media (not just the BBC) continue to profess "amazement" at the speed and efficiency of the transitioning from a dead monarch to a living one. There's been much speaking in awed tones at the pace of the various proclamations, committee meetings, document signings, etc, as if this pace tells us why we should be impressed. Personally I've found it borderline sickening. If there was a curtain that could have slip…
> people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces in several cities, and declared that a member of the elite has been replaced, the continuum is unbroken. You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft. This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs. Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really real…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see this exact same comment did pretty well on Reddit too: https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/xckw5v/comme... 1. Not all of the arrests have been made at a "funeral" 2. It wasn't a funeral 3. If you're going to have a very public precession, parading a body through the streets with all the obedients lapping it up, surely you have to have a level of tolerance for dissenting voices? I imagine the disrupt…
"with all the obedients lapping it up" What exactly is an "obedient"? Are you really deploying a disparaging tag on people who are mourning? That seems a bit crass to me. "we need room for the dissenting voices too" - I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right. I also find the sheer amount of coverage a bit overwhelmin…
Anyone obsequious enough to happily sing "God Save the Queen\King" and tolerate being ruled by elitists assholes called Royalty in 2022