Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows • Hacker News Board

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#631

Post by austinjp » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

phpthrowaway99 wrote: post #378

austinjp wrote: post #327

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…

You say it's not okay. I say it is. Unless you have something more this is basically just a random opinion stated as if it wasn't an opinion.

Are entirely sure you think it's okay to "march a bunch of military-state personnel into multiple public spaces across the country [edit: multiple countries], under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets"?

To be frank, it seems the onus is on you to explain your position. My explanation here and in other comments seems fairly clear: I find bald-faced elitism supported by the state, church, government and opposition, police, and media to be worrying. You may say that's just my "opinion", but I have explained my position.

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#632

Post by viridian » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 4:30 PM UTC

googlryas wrote: post #18

closewith wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though. > They are being arrested for being rude about it. Got it. Arrested for poor taste. Hard to see the justification for that in a democracy?

It's not being arrested for poor taste. They're being arrested for their actions, not their beliefs. Is there some democracy somewhere which doesn't have a public nuisance/breaching the peace style law?

It's like Stalinist Russia, you can believe whatever you want, it's only expressing those beliefs that gets you sent to the gulag.

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#633

Post by austinjp » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

ralfd wrote: post #477

austinjp wrote: post #327

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…

I can't really parse your points.

> You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft.

The accession of Charles is a major accomplishment, but hardly of "state craft". It's an accomplishment of inherited power backed by incumbent powers-that-be.

Unless you mean the ceremonial aspects are "state craft"? In which case I'd say they're certainly large, complex, and dangerous (terrorist risks etc), but more administration than state craft.

> This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs.

Not sure I follow. Do you mean resistance against elected representatives? It certainly is remarkable. It's not exactly modern, though, is it?

> Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?”

Elizabeth hung on until death. Hard to retain power beyond that (although many have tried). It was discussed ad nauseam that she could have stepped down long ago, that the monarchy could have reformed further. I guess reframing the question you quote, and asking Elizabeth or Charles, it might become "will you consider transitioning all your inherited authority to more modern, democratic processes?" But - like Trump, only to a far greater extent - there are thousands of people whose livelihoods and reputations derive from working with the incumbent powers.

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#634

Post by viridian » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

nautilius wrote: post #356

some_random wrote: post #224

Awful lot of Brits learning the crucial difference between the right to free speech, and the privilege of being allowed to speak freely.

Americans too. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#635

Post by austinjp » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

fennecfoxy wrote: post #587

austinjp wrote: post #327

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…

I'm not of the UK, but I live here. And the people chose for it to be this way after they beheaded Charles I. If enough people wanted to dissolve the monarchy then it would happen, though I'm sure without as much bloodshed as in 1649. Of course it's weird and strange and old fashioned, the entirety of the UK is built from the foundations on such things. Your love for brick over modern steel and glass, the countless c…

Indeed. I'm just curious about why people aren't ready to say the monarchy should go. All the plus points would seem to be achievable by other means. The negative points are extremely distasteful to me - which won't come as much surprise :)

Support for the monarchy is associated with older age groups [1]. Perhaps as time passes, those who are opposed or ambivalent will be in the majority. Maybe 40-50 years from now? I hope that William will try to get ahead of this, and persuade his father to lay the groundwork for the UK's monarchy to drift towards a different model. I obviously doubt he'll be in favour of abandoning the gravy train altogether.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-m...

Edit: Not sure about the people of the UK choosing for things to be "this way" by beheading Charles I. That was ostensibly a choice for constitutional monarchy instead of absolute, but developed into abolition of the monarchy. It was followed by the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, and I'm not sure that was much of a "choice" by the people either.

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#636

Post by eternalban » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

seydor wrote: post #597

eternalban wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's impossible no to have a 'peaceful transition of power' when one of the parties has kicked the bucket. I don't think [this is] how power works, specially in a monarchy. Peaceful transition means the power base that has given fealty to Mr. X is now accepting Mr. Y. That is the 'transition'.

So they can swear allegiance to a dead person?

That's funny. No. They can put their support behind another contender than Mr. Y (and English history has it's share of examples of crisis of succession, btw). In that case different factions that actually hold power get to duke it out to see whose candidate gets to be the new monarch/overlord/cesar/president. That is typically not peaceful, certainly not at the political level (think Tower of London) and may even involve actual guns and civil wars.

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#637

Post by ncmncm » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #629

ncmncm wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/bush-also-bowed-to-saudi-k... People made a lot more fuss about Obama because, you know, "Barack Hussein Obama", etc. Trump was seen doing it too.

If so, then you singling out W seems... a bit slanted. But if those three did, then did earlier presidents, and they just weren't documented? Or weren't made a big deal of when they did?

W did it first. So, no, citing W doing it first is not "slanted".

Instead, claiming that Obama and Trump also violating their public trust makes my observation "slanted" is actively dishonest: I said that W did it first, and W did it first. Period.

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#638

Post by dingaling » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

gw99 wrote: post #173

munk-a wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually an incredibly false point. The royal family (if treated like anonymous land-owners) would cause a sudden and drastic drop in fundraising within the UK. Assuming their property wasn't seized having them retain their current station is actually a net positive to the British tax-payers - they lose far more potential income each year in free land leases and charitable donations (known collectively as the…

This is wrong. Seize it. Make it National Trust property. Job done. Doesn’t need an aristocracy present in it. Also The Queen has a hell of a lot of hidden wealth.

The National Trust is a corporation ( registered company 01083105 ), it doesn't contribute anything to the State coffers.

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#639

Post by bArray » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #301

bArray wrote: post #171

> "Let her go! It's free speech!" The UK unfortunately doesn't have freedom of speech, it has freedom of expression. > The woman, 22, was arrested "in connection with a breach of the peace," a Police Scotland spokesperson told NPR, adding that she was formally charged and released, and her case is now pending at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. Just to add, you can also be arrested at speakers corner if you upset enough peop…

The UK doesn’t have freedom of expression.

Then why is it in law?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part...

Re: Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows

#640

Post by bArray » Tue, Sep 13, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

delecti wrote: post #208

bArray wrote: post #171

> "Let her go! It's free speech!" The UK unfortunately doesn't have freedom of speech, it has freedom of expression. > The woman, 22, was arrested "in connection with a breach of the peace," a Police Scotland spokesperson told NPR, adding that she was formally charged and released, and her case is now pending at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. Just to add, you can also be arrested at speakers corner if you upset enough peop…

> doesn't have freedom of speech, it has freedom of expression Can you help me understand that distinction? With a pretty limited understanding of UK law, my assumption would be that freedom of speech would cover any words but maybe not the specific way they're presented, while freedom of expression would cover even if those words were expressed in less polite way.

Worth checking this out: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part...

Notably:

> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.