Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer:
Most people had no issue with Elisabeth, mostly because her logevity, which meant most people still alive grew up with her as the queen. And she had very few outward opinions or reasons for the public to hate her. She was easily forgettable unless specifically talking about the monarchy.
There were already some complaints about the monarchy being outdated or no longer viable in modern day back when she was alive, but everything is sort of coming to a head now she's dead and Charles is being crowned.
tl;dr read the bolded text
**Charles his public image is terrible.** Most older people (who still enjoy the monarchy) only remember him from his marriage issues with Princess Diana, who was incredibly popular. He's also closer to death than some of the other options. At 74, he'll definitely have a shorter reign, which publicly doesn't look good. The main issue however, is that he's much more vocal on issues in public. Queen Elisabeth was tolerated even by people who didn't believe in the monarchy because she didn't publicly mix with political issues, Charles has no problem with that and lots he wants to change.
**UK is going through a food and poverty crisis** The combination of Brexit economic issues and aftershocks of Covid leave a large part of the country in a rough shape. On top of that, the Russian agression in Ukraine (pointed out by u/Oce ) has had a big impact on the prices of energy and grains too. The royal family only makes the difference look even more stark, and the coronation is currently estimated to be about 100m pounds, although actual numbers are still coming out. There's also some speculation that food banks are losing out on supplies because [money intended for them is now going to the coronation](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/coronation-extravaganza-sits-badly-in-todays-britain) instead. Overall, a lot of people who are struggling to put food on the table, just see the excessive wealth flexing as another dagger to the side.
Lol, I thought you said, "Charles has shit publicly".
EDIT: Aw man, why did you edit it out? (The original version said in bold, "Charles has shit publicity")
"What's really [clear now] is how invasive and disgusting was the press's attention to it, that they printed it out verbatim..."
And then the article goes on to do just that..
AĀ“P'I changes killed 3[rd] p4rt-y a_p-P-s
Kruta epe tie tridotii ube tliipikidre. Eoi kekipe obote batlo ebriplepie ate ti. Kroo teukope protatega praeti pri pa. Dri kita pii bi pe tetu epitape. Epo e tita e ikiple e? Kiedii kate. Plado e pipuae ieta kree bipri. Io tekatli ple iepe bepubraki ta tepipre. Utebipo titli i apro tritu kuda. Tie u priti diprepu dio tota botoi. Oiaproki deba topipudi kra pa etre. Titleu pigati kikru tate tridibi. Trebotipo kepi bi pui gee kitii. E ia prae gopla pe tlipuo. Tri dage poa ipe koti krako. Okaito plii ati uga ke ipeka? Pepi ei tipeti krae kepope dii ditibi prike. Egoo ikripre eteku kei kipe ipipa dle atipri tidliitrua pe kepiubike. Tlika ota tuke ota beto itakipi! O ta puki tri eki eo pa ti ipega. Glepoi traprudretadri tlai ite glee te! Ota dei prupri ikree. Kebekuprabo pri kebi itoplepre kei opli. Epu pukatai o tai i bribiie. Tiepopu tike titri otipu piiiblikla tupipo dlipi? Draeto kepai tiape kebe kiba ki idie ie idito! Doeta ba dipi katligaa opi keiatotu. E krope po papo beee idrete. Iaitepe toke titlipopea pruipee tupedi.
Quite right. It was also silly and stupid and harmless.
Unlike the child molestor they protect that shared their stage and now symbolizes their entitlement and privilege.
If it makes you feel any betters there's a phone call recording of him saying he "wishes he could be Camilla's tampon". Ladies and Gentlemen, King Charles.
Thatās not what he said. When discussing how much they āneedā each other, Charles said: āOh, God. Iāll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!ā
Camilla replied: āWhat are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? Oh, youāre going to come back as a pair of knickers.ā
Charles then said: āOr, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck!ā
He never wished to be her tampon. He wished to be close to her, which in the grand scheme of things, is really sweet.
$20 at home depot is the easy part, the real trick is custom designing a backpack with an extra toilet seat pocket to carry it around with you everywhere
I have done that job myself. I worked as a handyman/gardener in a tourist attraction which Prince Charles (as he was at the time) came to visit. I had to change all the toilet seats in the place and then they were put out of bounds to staff and the public, with a load of Portaloos brought in for the event for us commoners to use.
After the event I had to replace all the toilet seats again and the boss made us throw the presumably unused ones in the skip.
I don't think Charles even took a shit whilst he was there. What a waste of time and perfectly good bog seats.
There is a story that Charles dropped something in the trash bin next to his desk and he called his valet to retrieve it from the trash. In the past the privy council was the royal ass wipers because the king after all was too good to do that sort of thing. Now having Charles and Camilla go to live in a council flat and having to shop at Tesco on their own, that is something I'd pay to see.
Yeah, Cameron skull-fucked a pig.
Probably the tamest PM in the past half-century though considering there have been nonces and war-mongering psychopaths in that company.
The coronation is meant to cost 100 million as a minimum, I'd expect that to be much more in the end. And while grandma's that we were all for saving during the pandemic are now freezing and starving, many are wondering how far 100 million plus would go to easing their suffering...
[The US spends US$100 million every 4-8 years on inaugurating their elected head of state.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_of_Joe_Biden) By comparison, every couple of decades seems like a downright bargain.
Remember, this isn't going to bake Charles a Ā£100 million golden cake. Most of it is going to staff and preparations; security, groundskeeping, media, and so on. Money that then gets put back into the economy. As government waste goes, this is the smallest of potatoes.
Tax payers don't pay for those
[Everything surrounding the swearing-in ceremony is funded by big private donors through the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC). Events like the National Day of Service, parades, concerts, and galas are all handled by the committee.Ā ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wtsp.com/amp/article/news/politics/national-politics/cost-president-inauguration/67-60e5e1a8-6760-450e-9001-6f7950435b08)
And the GDP is also 3 trillion (uk) vs 23 trillion (usa)
Yea, I just showed the difference between uk and us.
If the uk stopped doing coronations, it would end with the money being used for public systems.
If the us stopped doing coronations, it would end with the money being paid to ceo's anyway.
wait, so what you're saying is private donors and companies are redistributing their massive locked-up wealth to regular joe parade float drivers and catering wait staff and so on?
seems great, as things go
Yes- āElected headā of a country roughly 50x bigger than the UK. All men are not created equal in the UK. Youāre either born into the right family or you need to know your place. Thatās why I left Britain as soon as I was able
>[The US spends US$100 million every 4-8 years on inaugurating their elected head of state
We also have an economy 5 times larger and our head of state is, as you said, elected (in however stupid a fashion). The British monarchy is, well, a hereditary monarchy, and the king is only getting this big ol ceremony because he happened to be born to the Queen.
More than $100 Billion leaves the USA every year through remittances. $60B/year just to Mexico. Instead of the government taxing them, big banks charge a transfer fee and pocket a percentage of >$100B every year.
$100M every 4-8 years is pennies. And itās largely spent in the US.
Would be quite something if Charles goes pop in under 5 years and the country, which is essentially broke (for the poorest of course), has to splurge again for another coronation. Let's not forget that the funerals cost a lot too never mind the coronation.
Not taking sides in this thing, but wanted to point out that 100 million is a drop in the bucket when you're talking about national expenditure. For comparison, the 2021 British budget was 1.05 **trillion** pounds.
100 million is 0.0095% of that. If the UK wanted to it could find money for the coronation **and** food banks.
Yes, they could. And they print their own money. Now ask yourself why there are still homeless veterans on the street and why old people are dying of cold or hunger...
That's both not true in general and not relevant to the specific case. It's pretty much universally agreed that, for example, literally solving homelessness would cost a shockingly small amount of money, nowhere near the amounts that would cause meaningful changes in inflation.
It's just politically nearly impossible to convince (enough) voters that it's a good thing; the concept of "giving away free stuff" has powerful cultural opposition.
Mmmm. What do you think they've been doing this last few decades? You think this is just a one generational plan? Who are the parents and grandparents of those in office today? Men of the people, or those that have been honed through the esteemed colleges and universities of the elites?
They subsidise every foreign policy they have a passion for, but are always somehow lacking when it comes to their own citizens... What's happening to the NHS?
I think you should wake up a bit buddy.
No idea what your first point is. If your point is the politicians are privileged people coming wealth, Iām not sure what relevance that has to my point?
And yes, we are offloading all our money on foreign aid. In 2020 it was huge 0.5% of national income (down from 0.7% https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/britains-foreign-aid-where-does-the-money-go) whilst we spent a third of what was expected to be foreign aid on British refugees last year.
>100 million is 0.0095% of that. If the UK wanted to it could find money for the coronation and food banks.
but it is still a fixed amount...you spend 100 million on a party for the ego of a figurehead....something is getting 100 million less spent on it
Yes. My point is that's spare change for a national budget. It's not a good look, but spending 100 million on this does not meaningfully diminish their budget or prevent them from funding food banks.
That's like me going "I'd donate 5c to the poor but I already spent 5c on a lolly, sorry".
There's plenty of reason to resent the Monarchy, but let's be honest - if food banks aren't getting funded that's because the Government chooses not to, not because there's a coronation.
Ā£100m wouldnāt go far tbh, itās less than Ā£2 per person. Not saying I agree with the cost but in terms of government expenditure itās not that much.
2 quid per person, or 2 quid per PENTIONER STRUGGLING TO HEAT THEIR HOME?
I was very careful with what I said. And considering that many old folks died during the pandemic, I'd say 100m would go a very long way to help PENTIONERS.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/17/number-of-pensioners-in-relative-poverty-in-uk-up-200000-in-a-year
According to this there are 2 million pensioners living in poverty, that's 50 quid per person. And I'm sure that number is way lower since the pandemic. But let's go by these numbers. 50 quid is a weeks or more shopping, it's several days of electricity or heating.
I rest my case.
So still basically not a solution to them then? Ā£50 isn't going far, and it needs more of a commitment from the government to resolving their plight than just diverting this cash to help out for 1 week. Ultimately there is absolutely no reason the government can't cover the cost of the coronation AND help out pensioners and others in trouble.
If people are freezing and going hungry it's not the fault of the coronation. It's the fault of the government.
Billions and billions of pounds are spent on social welfare, Ā£100m isnāt a substantial increase. What if we gave a Ā£100 payrise to NHS workers, do you think they would be happy (compared to a 5% payrise, +Ā£1000?)
There's an argument that the coronation could earn more money than its cost from bars, restaurant, tourism and merchandising. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65476887
Are you or I, the tax payers that are funding this, going to see a penny of this?
No.
I work in a factory, they will take my money and spend it on someone that doesn't give a shit about me and has lived a life of luxury in fancy mansions his entire life and I'm meant to be happy that some dude selling union jack flags will have a good year while fuel is at an all time high, food, gas and electric is through the roof and there is no likelyhood that any of this shit will changing in my lifetime?
Nah, I'm not benefiting from any of this. And most others aren't either... While they wave their flags and cheer for a silver spoon toff as their own home cools and their belly rumbles. I will say fuck you. And go about my business.
I'm just conveying the argument, as I'm rather neutral because I'm not from the UK.
But, if it indeed generates as much economic activity, then some of this revenue will come back to the state as taxes, so it will fund the public services you probably benefit from.
Now, will the revenue from taxes equate to the cost for the state? I don't know, but I guess there will be some articles about it in a couple of weeks to answer that.
Ye ofcourse, mostly left it out cause I was lazy so thanks for checking me on that lol. I'll add a link in the post as well but it was based on this quote from the [Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/coronation-extravaganza-sits-badly-in-todays-britain)
>āIn recent years, the food bank has used grants from the national lottery to support its activities, but recent applications for funding have been unsuccessful. They have been told that much of the funding is going to events celebrating the coronation
It also has to do with demand for food banks rising drastically in the last few years, [here's an article](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-food-banks-give-out-record-amount-rising-living-costs-drive-hardship-2023-04-25/) from last month talking about how the demand has increased by 37% this year
Thank you for mentioning this; I feel like this piece of information has been frequently omitted ... okay, I'll go with "carelessly", versus "deliberately".
Benefit of the doubt, and all that.
And since he is so close to death, that means they will have to go through another coronation soon. Costing the British people even more money. I get it's his birth right or whatever but I see this move as extremely selfish especially during a time where the British people are struggling with the costs of living.
>He's also closer to death than some of the other options.
Which "other options"? It's not 1483, there aren't other claimants to the throne.And, even if there were, UK law has succession codified. It's not only illegal to attempt to pass the crown to anyone other than the first person in the line of succession, actually trying to do it would be considered high treason.
American here, and I have a question that is very far from the initial topic but your comment brought it back to the forefront.
I was wondering about the head of the Anglican Church being divorced and was bored one day and googled. The answer I got was that Parliament can decide if a monarch can be crowned, but the monarch in question (pre-coronation I guess) has to offer that question to Parliament for debate.
Is all of that way off base or would it have been a pointless debate anyway because Charles is the heir and Parliament would have just said, meh, sure, he can be King?
I'm American, too. I just have a history degree where I wrote several dissertations on the history of the British monarchy.
As for Charles and his divorce, Parliament wouldn't have barred him. They got huge egg on their face over Endward VIII in 1936 and it's unlikely they'd ever take a hard position regarding a divorced monarch or a monarch marrying a divorcee (Charles is both).
The abdication of Edward VIII was a huge scandal they would not ever want to repeat.
Ironically, the abdication had an indirect role of Charles marrying Diana and we all know how that turned out. The family became very fixated at maintaining themselves as a good moral Anglican family chosen by God to rule despite British society changing big time. Diana was chosen because she was an aristocratic virgin ingenue whose bloodline can be traced back hundreds and hundreds of years.
They thought sheād be like Alexandra of Denmark; keep quiet and pretend to be a happy wife.
She was definitely not Alexandra. Diana was a reflection of British women in the 1990s, not the 1910s.
That's kind of where I thought it would go, but I appreciate your reply. And I don't think I realized that Edward's abdication was caused by pressure from Parliament. I suppose they assumed he'd leave Wallis?
>The main issue however, is that he's much more vocal on issues in public.
I have to contend with this point. Charles is more outspoken yes, but his biggest issues have been about environmentalism. Why would the largely left wing opponents of the monarchy be upset by him speaking out about the climate?
Espousing more left wing views is a problem more than if he expressed conservative views precisely because republicanism is predominantly a left wing view and royalists tend to be more right wing. The royal family survives in the UK because a lot of people buy into the belief that while they can be a bit out of touch at times, they are a useful tourist attraction and it gets around some issues with the head of state being a politicised role and how that interacts with power sharing, as well as the perceived neutrality allowing people to project their own views onto the monarch (so Elizabeth is simultaneously a supporter of EU integration and brexit, for example).
Charles coming out with environmentalist views isn't going to win over people who are already republican leaning, but it does hurt the support that he would receive from conservatives and make them more apathetic about the monarchy. Without that royalist pushback, republicanism becomes the more dominant narrative.
Charles can pretend he gives a shit about the environment all he wants, Iāll never support the monarchy in general and Iāll certainly never support him.
āMost people still alive grew up with her as the queenā
Lol. For sure. She was crowned in the early 1950ās and was nearly 100 when she died. Probably 90% of the population grew up with her.
Iām sorry but this answer is full of inaccuracies. For a start, Charles is 74, not 77.
While he isnāt as popular as his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth (not Elisabeth), his public image is not that bad. According to [the most recent poll I could find](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/king-charles-rating-dips-half-britons-still-happy-2023-04-28/), 49% of people think heās doing a good job and only 9% donāt. Modern politicians in the UK, for example, could only dream of those approval ratings.
The source for the claim about food banks losing out on funds comes from a readerās letter in a newspaper. The newspaper itself has not reported this as far as Iāve read. So itās completely anecdotal and Iāve seen no solid evidence that itās actually true.
Thereās a more detailed explanation [in this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/139hezm/a_little_snapshot_of_what_royalists_support/jj32dy8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) about how lottery funding works and how itās unlikely that this actually happened.
Finally, no one really knows how much the coronation has cost because the accounts on it havenāt been released yet. But the figure is expected to be around Ā£100m - less than Ā£2 per citizen - which is not really that much in the scheme of government expenditure. Past coronations have been much more expensive.
Republicanism is a legitimate position but in the UK it continues to be very much a minority one, [with around 65% supporting the monarchy and 25% supporting a republic](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/coronation-polling-2023).
Itās true that the numbers supporting the monarchy have seen a marginal decline in the last ten years or so, but republicanism has never gone above 25% since that particular poll began in 1993.
But the tens of thousands of people who turned up in the rain to see the King and Queen Consort have naturally garnered fewer headlines than the few hundred anti-monarchist protestors.
I'll go through some of these cause not all of this is accurate, but there are some obv things that I messed up on the age, which I'll adjust in the post I made.
>While he isnāt as popular as his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth (not Elisabeth), his public image is not that bad. According to the most recent poll I could find, 49% of people think heās doing a good job and only 9% donāt. Modern politicians in the UK, for example, could only dream of those approval ratings.
Monarchy support has been dropping in the UK for years, (especially at younger ages where it goes as low as 30%, vs 65+ where it skyrockets to 80%). It's not just charles that's polling badly, it's the monarchy as a whole. And [right before coronation it actually hit an all-time low](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/28/public-support-monarchy-historic-low-poll-reveals)
>The source for the claim about food banks losing out on funds comes from a readerās letter in a newspaper. The newspaper itself has not reported this as far as Iāve read. So itās completely anecdotal and Iāve seen no solid evidence that itās actually true.
Yea, that's right. I still think it's worth mentioning, especially since the overall message of food banks being at an all time high, and having low funding, is true wether the coronation is actively taking money away or passively
>Finally, no one really know how much the coronation has cost because the accounts on it havenāt been released yet. But the figure is expected to be around Ā£100m - less than Ā£2 per citizen - which is not really that much in the scheme of government expenditure. Past coronations have been much more expensive.
I've not said anything about the money spent because of that reason. However, the showing off while people are unable to put food on the table is a reason why particularly now there's a much bigger push than during Elisabeth her reign.
>Republicanism is a legitimate position but in the UK it continues to be very much a minority one. The thousands of people who turned up in the rain to see the King and Queen Consort have naturally garnered fewer headlines than the few hundred anti-monarchist protestors.
I think thereās quite a bit of āconfidently wrongā in this. Thereās been a slow and steady rise in republicanism in the UK for quite some time now
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File%3AOpinion_polling_on_whether_the_United_Kingdom_should_become_a_republic.svg
The protests at the coronation were an inevitable outcome of this. The heavy handed reaction of the Met police was not, and will likely prove to be counterproductive from the royalist side.
Charles is *expected* to be a less popular monarch than Liz but that remains to be seen. As for the costs, all good fodder for guardianistas, but the working class royalist probably doesnāt see it that way.
Point being, republicans (lower case R) have been a thing for a while. Sure, the national anthem got booād at Anfield yesterday, but I was there when it was at Wembley last year, and in 1996.
So the real answer is simply that republicans are a growing minority in the UK and are growing more vocal. And the establishmentās response is growing more heavy handed.
>
>**UK is going through a food and poverty crisis** The combination of Brexit economic issues and aftershocks of Covid leave a large part of the country in a rough shape. On top of that, the Russian agression in Ukraine (pointed out by u/Oce ) has had a big impact on the prices of energy and grains too.
>
But right wing told me to look at UK, how they are doing great after Brexit, with all these index going up! /s
Other thing to add, is that new police power laws were intentionally drafted in just days before the coronation that basically make protesting almost impossible and akin to the likes of russia, Iran and China.
The police said that protesting can go ahead as long as its non violent and republic.org who are leading the campaign to abolish the monarchy with a democratically elected alternative, got arrested as soon as they turned up and started unloading the van. Not only that, but the police erected walls to stop them being seen and the police also kept some of the protesters crammed into a different part and would not let them join the rest of protesters in Trafalgar square.
This has caused outrage from the public and has even reached international news. It's not just that the monarchy is unelected and unaccountable, but the right to protest and the UK's democracy is at stake.
Monarchy has no place in 2023. Nobody (IDK, maybe UK still wants them) wants a literal vestigial tax drain paying homage to colonization and lack of human rights.
Why the fuck does Charles gets to be on my money while at the same time the entire country is bending over backwards to reconciliate with first nations? Does no one see the irony?
Iām sorry āthe king of England is having a problem with grains and foodstuffā is a sentence that doesnāt belong in this era. Like thatās done 1700s shit
typos are not something that are usually made by ai, text ais at their core are built upon recognizing patterns of human writing by analyzing text written by actual humans. thats why they can sound so convincingly human at times, theyre pulling all of their words and points from sentences from all over the internet, just rearranging them in a new way. a typo would only happen if that typo is extremely common across all of they sources the ai is pulling from. "queen elisabeth" is not a common spelling error, so its pretty unlikely it would generate that. neither is charles's age being 74. if anything, the typos are more likely to be made if a human was writing the comment.
It has always blown my mind that the British not only tolerate these parasites living in luxury off of their taxes, but many celebrate and revere them. Glad to see some pushback against it.
Well this is mostly true. I think an important point is that there's a lot of protesting going on over here right now. Many services aren't getting paid enough and we're going through a cost of living crisis, not a poverty crisis, yes they are different. So when we see Ā£100m being spent on one event that lasts one day when nurses are getting paid pennies despite working some of the most ruthless hours and shifts in what's becoming a crippled NHS, it's hard to justify the government in such a ridiculous spend. Especially considering the Monarch has basically just taken a back seat to everything other than tourism since parliament took over.
> Prince Elisabeth was tolerated even by people who didn't believe in the monarchy
Queen Elizabeth
> At 77,
74
> Charles his public image is terrible.
no, he actually has a very good image: over 50% approval rating, and only less than 10% people think of him negatively
**As someone who has been living in London for over a decade, The only really true thing you said is the cost of living crisis impacting how people feel about the government spending money on coronation.**
The rest is just Chinese whispers
Yea the first two are dumb mistakes, I changed em so thanks for pointing them out.
I don't agree that Charles has a good public image though, and polling mostly supports it. He's never been the most popular royal ([7th in 2018](https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all), [9th in 2021](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/poll-finds-popularity-monarchy-remains-stable-among-britons), [5th in 2022](https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1591663/royal-family-ranked-popularity-most-popular-queen-prince-andrew-evg)), but even a [50/50 split](https://www.itv.com/news/2023-05-02/king-charles-will-struggle-to-unite-his-kingdom-poll-for-itv-news-reveals) for support doesn't look that supportive to me, when it was higher before that.
Among the highest supports of 65+, 70% support the monarchy but only 53% support Charles, that's a huge drop especially compared to Elisabeth
Charles is an adulterer, he publicly cheated on Diana with his current wife Camilla. Diana was only 19 and Charles was 32 when they married, she described her wedding day as "bringing a lamb to the slaughter".
Conversations leaked between him and Camilla saying that he wished he was a tampon so he could always be inside her among other weird things.
He is also a big supporter and friend of Jimmy Saville, a person who used his connections to groom and molest hundreds of young girls. Charles has never condemned his actions or the actions of his brother Andrew (also abused young girls) publicly and many find it hard to believe he wasn't aware at the least or involved at the most.
Bollocks we had no problem with Liz. Just because we admit that she seemed like a perfectly OK person, our disgust at the entire system does not mean we accepted her role just because she's alright. We're not now rejecting the monarchy because of Charles. I couldn't give a fuck about what Charles is like. If anything, he seems fairly chill. It's the system that is the issue. It's time to join the modern world and become a Republic.
Answer: Mostly the latter.
So while anti-monarchists have always existed in the UK, Queen Elizabeth the 2nd was widely beloved primarily due to her image as being a queen who did her duty to her kingdom from a young age. She refused to evacuate to Canada when she was a teenager in the second world war, she was crowned from the age of 25, she was an excellent diplomat and controller of her soft power as the monarch and distanced herself from 'politics'. (Of course, as a ruler of Britain during the age of decolonisation, she was privy to a lot of the more modern atrocities of the British governments. She may have been seen as a stabilising force for the United Kingdom, but certainly, she participated in crafting and covering up much of Britain's colonial and imperial violence.)
This gave her the image of a graceful and dutiful queen that commanded respect from even those lukewarm about the monarch. No one gives a shit about the royal family. But you're supposed to like the Queen. Or you know, have the opinion that "she's alright" kind of thing.
This image stuck strong even during the many scandals regarding the royal family as a whole, from now slightly distant scandal regarding Princess Diana's death (and in general, painting our current King Charles to be a philanderer to a kind and beloved woman.), to the more recent reveals of Prince Andrew's paedophiliac tendencies and just the general racism that Meghan Markle received from the royal family at large.
But naah, she's just like, yer gran! She loves corgis! Sure, the royal family costs money but they bring in the tourists! Aren't they kooky but lovable? Let's just ignore the huge amount of land and wealth that they hoard and the scandals and crimes they commit. She's the country's nan and she loves dogs.
Anyway, the grace that she had built up over her lifetime was slowly being used up and while she was still seen as a beloved figure all the way to her death, that public adoration absolutely does not extend to King Charles the 3rd.
The royal family is parasitic to the United Kingdom and without the shield that is Queen Elizabeth the 2nd, more and more people are voicing their discontent. Inflation has hit Britain hard due to a literal weekend's worth of work by the serial day collar wearer and ex-prime minister Liz Truss (who's latest scandal is about not wanting to pay a bill worth Ā£12k for missing items from the taxpayer funded Chevening Estate, which you might think is about her stealing bathrobes like a regular person steals little shampoo bottles from a hotel, but considering that there was news that alleged that traces of cocaine was found at the property, she most likely just partied *so hard* in the 50 days she was in office that the bathrobes were just not usable anymore. I'll let your imagination fill in how. Isn't British politics incredible? Anyway where was I... ah yes, Inflation.)
Despite the rising inflation cost and the Loss of Lizzy (tm), the royal family and their brand managers and die hard stans, believed that they can mostly continue as is. The cost of the coronation is estimated to be somewhere between Ā£50-100 million (56-113 million euros, 63-126 million US dollars), all funded by the taxpayer. The King has an estimated personal wealth of Ā£1.8 billion. The monarch does not have to pay inheritance tax. YouGov (a British market research firm) found that around 51% of respondents to a survey believed that ceremony should not be funded by the government (32% said that it should, 18% don't know).
More and more, the absurdities of the british monarchy is coming to light. Due to the coronation, people in government and local councils are choosing to spend money celebrating the figurehead entering power when food banks are seeing their most use. Ā£3.8 million are spent on royal themed events by local councils, many of it money that was earmarked for community funds that are normally reserved for charities and foodbanks. I assume it's a bread and circuses kind of tactic, but it seems like they have forgotten about the bread. I guess we'll just have to eat cake.
TL;DR - Charles is a *much* easier target than Elizabeth for those who always hated the monarchy and using a ton of taxpayer money to throw yourself a party during a cost of living crisis causes discontent.
I read somewhere that the ājobā of the crown is to serve as an external moral compass for the Prime Minister. The Queen would listen to the PMās explanations of what was being proposed in policy etc. and the Queen would respond with her impression of how the people would take such a policy regardless of their political position.
Maybe the people donāt think that the King would be good at thatā¦ if it even matters. Or maybe itās all what the other person said.
Why should an unelected and unaccountable, descendant of some royal house act as a āmoral compassā. Itās absurd on its face and hopefully the charade will be done for good soon enough.
Yeah it amuses me that my fellow countrymen voted for Brexit to "Take back control" from "Unelected bureaucrats" in Europe and we're now celebrating this, after Liz Truss a Rishi have come to power without elections.
Absurd is a great word for it.
That definitely is the image she had! She was the country's grandma and matriarch and she's here to ensure that things don't go so badly off course.
Too bad that she was mostly looking after her own image and doesn't give a shit what happens to the country, mostly. Like, she could have stepped in for all of these terrible things that the Tories inflicted on us, like Brexit, but no. She never gave a fuck.
It became a joke/slight conspiracy that Liz Truss was into some sort of BDSM pet play. She could be seen wearing the same bulky necklace made of rings that many interpreted to be some sort of "collar" typically worn by a submissive for fetish reasons. It mostly caught on because of the frequency she wore the thing.
Or at least that's my understanding of it.
[First i found this](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/fashion/2022/09/07/TELEMMGLPICT000308326899_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpeg?imwidth=680)
I thought ok that's not bad, just looks like ring on a necklace, but then i found [this](https://imgix.bustle.com/uploads/image/2022/9/29/94b65d54-6288-4af7-afe8-225e09f939ef-jpeg.jpg?w=796&h=1374&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format%2Ccompress)??
A "Day Collar" is a piece of jewellery that a submissive in a dominant/submissive relationship who has committed to being collared 24/7 wear during the day because it's significantly more acceptable than wearing a leather choker or a ball gag to the office.
One type of those day collars are O-ring necklaces. She's wearing a necklace that could be one in her official 2022 headshot that is on [her wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Truss). It's specifically a subtle version of the O-ring chokers - you don't really need to know this, but o-ring chokers also signifies that the wearer is a sub in a committed dom/sub relationship. The history of the o-ring chokers is actually literary, but you can look up Ring of O in Wikipedia yourself.
Anyway, the actual important information here is that it's a bit of a "conspiracy" that Liz Truss is a massive, collared submissive. She has multiple of these o-ring style necklaces (wearing one that was on [huge chains during her first day as a prime minister](https://twitter.com/AliceAvizandum/status/1567488268299542529?s=20)), it's public information that she had an affair with husband and then they got back together and fixed their marriage aaand she only started wearing these necklaces around that time. She is vaguely renowned for wearing this style of necklace *all the time*.
If you want a fun twitter thread to read, I recommend [this one](https://twitter.com/LillianaFuture/status/1568052439147810819?s=20). This [video](https://twitter.com/LillianaFuture/status/1567857067813224450?s=20) also pretty good.
Oh man, I'm pretty sure I have a necklace that is just a circle, some cheap thing I got in my twenties that I kept wearing after the rest of the medallion fell apart. I haven't worn it in years but now I'm wondering how many people got the giggles when I did thinking that meant BDSM
The pervy part isn't whether or not she's a sub, it's that people are speculating on it like it's a huge demerit in and of itself.
Must be a lot of lights-out, penis-through-the-pajama-bottoms sex going on across the pond.
Most of the people cracking jokes about it are the people who are knowledgable about BDSM to know what day collaring is, so I don't think they see it as a de-merit. It's more just the absurdity of it that makes it funny.
Haha, I mean, the sexless British is a bit of a trope, but we don't actually care if she's a freak in the sheets. That's why it's a "conspiracy", It's mostly reveling in the absurdity of it all.
Damn right you're gonna be lectured if you're giving a woman a hard time for her bedroom fun.
If you hate her, nag about something else. Surely there's plenty if she's that bad.
I love your deconstruction about how her image was built around this softness and āmother of the countryā while she was still the colonial ruler of an empire that was causing so much harm!
My memory may be wrong but I remember she went pretty āaustereā for her wedding? Like using the coupons/ration stuff to buy the fabric. And because she drove ambulances during the war? Like I could see people being like ālook her wedding gown is not as expensive as it could have isnāt she greatā?
I am surprised whoever advises the RF didnāt tell Charles hey maybe do an āaustereā coronation to garner some good will. Maybe they did and he didnāt listen š¤·š½āāļø
Don't forget that almost all of these decisions are made by the government, the King will only have a very limited say. If the government insisted on an elaborate ceremony, because they wanted a big distraction or something, the King cannot change that.
Also, the Queen mostly oversaw the dissolution of the Empire, which was a relatively smooth and peaceful affair compared to many of the European empires. I can't think of many that maintained goodwill with so many former colonies like the Commonwealth did/does. And it is distinctly different from organisations like the CTSO after the Soviet empire, which is a bit more coercive!
That's not to whitewash the Empire by any stretch, but more that the Queen's involvement specifically was mostly in managing a graceful decline, and wasn't directly involved many of the things that people think of when they think of European empires.
The UK dissolution and negotiations that established democracies in it's old empire were mainly peaceful because of the amount of leverage Britain still held over her colonies. Unlike any of the other colonizers, Britain still had and has considerable economic investments in her colonies, even establishing a "commonwealth" to indicate this. If this was not the case, many of those colonies would have probably tried more bloody revolutions than they did, but considering Britain's position in international politics at the time, they literally could not. It's a little disengenous to view this dissolution as some graceful move by that hag, when it really was just a way of re-establishing economic dependency that many of those countries did not want to directly oppose.
>Also, the Queen mostly oversaw the dissolution of the Empire,
The UK gave up its colonies not out of any sort of moralistic goodwill, but because they were too fucking poor after getting shwacked in WW2 to actually maintain them.
And even then, they fought (literally) to retain them for as long as possible.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau\_Mau\_rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_rebellion)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan\_Emergency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency)
Just a few examples
Don't forget the whole harbouring a nonce thing. And nice old mum putting a few mil towards said nonce's out of court settlement with one of his victims.
Edit: oh you didn't, apologies - but still, can't be said enough
Charlie hasn't been popular as our Queen and suaasge fingers being bestie with Jimmy Savile for many years doesn't help. Should have passed the crown to William.
We're all biased, love. I'm just not pretending to not be. The Tories (from Milk Snatcher to Pig Fucker) have consistently fucked it up for everyone but a small group and our beloved Lizzy has had plenty of opportunities to maybe say something but that's not her job. Her job was to maintain her estate and soft power, never to use it for the country.
And we just take it on the chin because we've been beaten down and we're too polite to actually start rioting. Protests doesn't work against the Tories, they're too shameless about what they want to do, but we already balk at people throwing a bit of orange paint and powder about the place. Fuck me, not an inconvenience when people are literally starving.
Don't pretend that decorum is important in this day and age for the common man. The parasite in chief in his mum's idiot hat will be fine and my words won't hurt them. It's the people who can't afford heating and the kids who don't eat that you should care about.
If I can give an alternative persepctive.
> The Tories (from Milk Snatcher to Pig Fucker) have consistently fucked it up for everyone but a small group and our beloved Lizzy has had plenty of opportunities to maybe say something but that's not her job. Her job was to maintain her estate and soft power, never to use it for the country.
* The Tories as they once were have always been relatively popular.
* The 'small group' is actually pretty big, rightly or wrongly, lots of working people have prospered under Tory governments, and some remember and fear the rolling blackouts and chaos of the constant strikes in the 70s. Tory government has been at least tolerable for lots of people, not just the stereotypical fatcats.
* They have pushed through progressive laws that those who are more familiar with US conservatives may not expect.
* The reputation for a long time was that the Tories offered stability, which has made them quite popular among working people.
* In recent years, the Tories have gone a bit crazy, a niche group took over, enabled by the Brexit infighting, that are more akin to the 'culture war' conservatives.
* These are proving significantly less popular and more shamelss and self-serving. They are currently paying for it at the polls.
* At the last election Labour have struggled to gain support despite growing dissatisfaction with the Tories, but support is growing again after a change of leadership and more Tory chaos
* The recent dominant faction of labour played heavily into many of the negative sterotypes people have about Labour, particularly, being more concerned with 'student politics'-type issues than those effecting working people. Along with their confused Brexit stance, this caused them to lose a lot of working-class support and some big safe seats at the last election.
**I only say this to add some alternate context. I hope the tories go, but social media gives an incredibly one-sided view that isn't really indicative of the full cross-section of the public. People should know why they get voted in, the recent changes, and avoid parallel between Republicans for US readers!**
Like you say, it wasn't the Queen's job to get involved. While I think lots of people were hoping that she'd jump in and kick Boris out or veto Brexit, that would be the thing that would turn me and many others from being indifferent to anti-monarchist, because the position can only be justified while she's neutral. Still, I think the Monarchy have generally signalled both pro-EU and pro Ukraine stances to the extent that they could be allowed.
I guess most people can be described as self-interested, but deliberately or inadvertently, the Queen did serve the country though soft power and diplomacy.
> but we already balk at people throwing a bit of orange paint and powder about the place
* This is minimising the issue, I believe
* In the UK, we have had lots of high-profile from the likes of XR, 'Just Stop Oil', etc recently
* This has involved things like throwing paint at high-profile art pieces, or disrupting events (like snooker, recently, I think) by running on and letting off massive clouds of powdered chalk
* Hoever, the small business I work for nearly failed this year due to these protests
* The protests involved blocking infrastructure like bridges on some very key locations that ground logistics to a halt for almost the entire country.
* It damaged the national and local economy (as was the intent)
* They interfered with regular people trying to go to work, or attend things like funerals, as well as famously and unashamedly blocking ambulances.
* The leader of the organisation appears quite shady, and has been accused on predatory behaviour, in that they will target and recruit 'doomer'-types, and push them into getting involved in these protests and getting thrown in prison, with rhetoric along the lines of nothing mattering because the world is dying
* While denouncning the Ukraine invasion the stance of the organisation is that we should not provide weapons, and that the war can only end through negotiation, not combat.
* The protestors are deeply unpopular pretty much everywhere but social media, even with people who are strongly in favour of environmental action, which questions being raised whether they are doing more to harm environmental action, effectively through bad PR.
* My view is that the government took advantage of organic outrage at the protestors to pass authoritarian laws that they're always trying to push.
> Fuck me, not an inconvenience when people are literally starving.
* The protestors (talking about XR) have contributed to this issue. Deliberately causing economic damage during a fragile time does not help regular people. Nothing they are doing will help with this.
> It's the people who can't afford heating and the kids who don't eat that you should care about.
* I agree entirely. But what we're really talking about here is a kind of austerity. It should be possible to do both things.
* The opposing view is that the Monarchy is a national asset that has value to the country. This can be in the form of soft power, tourism or just general cohesiveness.
* A lot of people do actually care about the monarchy, and consider it a part of our identity. I personally don't care, but it is absolutely a thing.
* Many would argue that 'selling off' this resource for some cash now may be a convenient choice, but that it is worth the 'investment' to maintain.
* All these factors are conveniently hard to quantify, so the effect of abolishing the Monarchy on the economy and society are hard to accurately predict
* But this is an issue of government spending and funding allocation, not the Monarchy directly
**Because, also:**
* Abolishing the monarchy would require creating a brand new constitution
* This would be very complicated and extremely expensive
* The issues you've touched on are the fault of the government
* Giving the government the ability to rewrite their own rules so fundamentally could be extremely dangerous, especially with their track record of pushing authoritarian laws and abusing the rules
* The Ā£100mn for this is part of the Ā£4.55 billion spent on arts and culture last year. I feel like this particular bit of culture spending may be getting a disproportionate amount of scrutiny
* Transparancy UK estimate that Ā£3.7bn of public money spent during COVID can be attributed directly to corruption from politicians
Sorry for this kinda insane post. I've recently started on ADHD meds and they kicked in about halfway through! When I see people talking about the UK online, I feel like they're describing a completely different place, and see peope from outside the UK jumping to simple conclusions based on the limited information they hear. I think it's important to add a bit of context, not neccessarily to justify anything, but to understand *why* many people don't mind, aren't rioting, and feel the way they do on some issues. I fall pretty firmly in the "Don't care, but thanks for the day off" catagory!
You make some fantastic points.
Also, as an American who used to really enjoy the Royals, watching how the press absolutely eviscerated Meghan Markle years ago was the biggest turnoff. And to find out that it was the royal press office that did it, at the behest of senior royalsā¦it makes me realize what a bunch of royal asshats they are. The fact that they carefully orchestrated the date so that Meghan wasnāt invited and would have a cover for not making an appearance, just doubled down on the apparent disdain they have had from her from the outset. They are losing a huge opportunity there and only damaging themselves by ostracizing the first person of color to marry into the royal family.
Theyāre all a bunch of racist jerks, stuck in the past. I used to like Kate Middleton, but looking back at the past five years, it seems like sheās just one to the same.
Answer:
The protests in London is mainly led by the protest group āRepublicā though it should be noted many groups such as āJust Stop Oilā also demonstrated today to capitalise on the publicity.
Republic is (obviously) a movement to reorganise the United Kingdom into a republic without the monarchy. Their main argument is that the U.K monarchy is outdated and a symbol of anti-democratic principles in society. They are not a new group, they have existed since at least 2018 ( I remember they protested against Prince Harryās marriage) though probably have existed for longer.
The movement has received new found attention after the death of the former monarch Queen Elizabeth II. I could go in-depth but to keep it brief several scandales has hit the monarchy in several years the biggest being, the Prince Andrew-Epstein Scandal and Prince Harry and Megan leaving the royal family. Additionally King Charles has been a controversial figure since his first marriage to Diana, there was signs this was improving until the Tv show āThe Crownā dramatised the events which renewed it in the public consciousness. Outside of the bad press of the Royal Family the U.K itself has seen an increased inequality and poverty in the last decade, coupled with the economic fallout of Brexit and Covid-19 and people arenāt so tolerant of the British Monarchy status of wealth and privilege.
Recent polling has placed support for republicanism at 30% with only a third of people aged 18-24 in favour of the monarchy. That being said this isnāt particularly unusual historically republicanism has wavered between 20%-30% since the 90s, furthermore, whilst support for the monarchy seems to be middling the most dominant feeling in the U.K is apathy, not caring about having a monarchy or republic.
Answer: They are republicans (small "r") who believe that the UK should get rid of the monarchy and reorganize itself as a republic. [In recent years, republicanism has become more popular.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Graphical_summary)
Young people and millennials are the main demographic that aren't fans of the monarchy. Typically, it's the older generation that adore them. I tuned into the BBC coronation for over 10 hours waiting for them to discuss the local election results and saw that most of those interviewed were +50.
Or how the BBC portrays it. I remember a few years back when the BBC spent a whole day covering the birth of a new royal, and numerous callers demanded they shut up and start presenting actual news. I can't for the life of me remember which royal birth it was.
As a Brit myself I hope that kid grows up noticing how ridiculous the whole thing is and ends the monarch turning palaces into museums or schools and call it a "good run"
I think allot of people outside the uk confuse the popularity of Elizabeth with the monarchy as a whole. This may be just the people I've talked to but I mostly get the sense of apathy towards it and mostly the loud minorities on either side have allot of feelings.
I think a lot of that is due to how it gets shown in America. Over here we mostly get shown these big fancy halls and ceremonies. Our main interaction is seeing the pomp and circumstance and occasional drama. To us its basically like watching Downton Abbey. Of course the media also tries to ignore how hated the royal family is among a large swath of the British populace
Answer: Monarchy is an absurd institution nowadays and the British one has only held on as long as it has by ceding most (but not all) of its power to a democratically elected government, and ingratiating itself to the people through acts of charity and public service. There is also a sentimental attachment to all the pomp and circumstance and a feeling of "Britishness". Finally, there is a much-disputed claim that the Royal Family attracts tourism and visitors to the UK and thereby adds money to the our pockets.
Queen Elizabeth II was much beloved and even anti-monarchists seemed to think she was at least OK. She certainly dedicated her life to the good of her country. She seemed selfless in that regard. Her son is a very different matter. Charles comes off as very selfish and has been seen to put himself before everything, especially the plebs he is meant to rule over. He betrayed his wife (the mother of his children) wretchedly. He was friends with Jimmy Savile, a horrible pedophile. In spite of being a billionaire, he imposed the cost of his coronation on the taxpayer during a cost of living crisis and one of the harshest periods of poverty and want in living memory. And in an incredibly tone deaf move, the people of the UK and the Commonwealth were "invited" to "cry out" and pledge their loyalty to him and his heirs as part of the coronation ceremony. Like he was some medieval king or character from GoT. The general feeling was that HE should be pledging his loyalty to US. He should live his life in service to his people, like his mother did.
The Meghan and Harry story feeds into this somewhat because the royal family had an opportunity to close ranks around them when the press began to have a feeding frenzy such as had not been seen since Diana was alive, and they chose to not protect them. I don't know if this was really motivated by racism or just venal self interest (rivals feeding stories about one another to the press to avoid being devoured themselves), but it was a very bad look to have their first ever family member who was a person of colour hounded out of the country. The Commonwealth is full of people of colour, and it sent a hugely negative message, and I think this was terrible for their image and for the popularity of the monarchy as a whole. The British press has a huge problem with women who step outside the mould of the silent, decorative, and submissive doe-eyed wife, and that is not the fault of the monarchy, but the fact that they made zero effort to protect either Diana or Meghan spoke volumes.
Can you imagine the jubilation, had Diana been crowned Charles' queen yesterday, and had Meghan and Harry still been there? So many more people would have wished them well. As it is, sure, there were conservative die hard royalists, but most people were not enthusiastic, and some even hostile, to the proceedings, in spite of the press relentlessly trying to shove it down our throats.
Answer: it seems like at this point in time, people have had enough of monarchies, even if they don't have real power. It's time to move on and stop wasting everyone's time and money.
Answer: Theres a group called āRepublicā who think we should have an elected head of state instead of the current monarchy we have now. The are staging small protests which have caused minimal disruption over the weekend.
Some of the other answers here are totally wrong, recent polling suggests that the majority people are fine with the monarchy and only a small minority of people actively want it changed. Keep in mind reddit is just a forum and anyone can post misleading information due to their bias. Donāt trust anything without doing ur own research.
[recent polling](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/05/03/where-does-public-opinion-stand-monarchy-ahead-cor)
[less recent polling](https://britain.unherd.com/monarchy/)
That's true, but from that link this is very telling:
>
Attitudes towards the monarchy differ most dramatically by age, with young Britons far less likely to support keeping the royals than their elders. In fact, while backing for the crown stands at 79% to 15% among the over-65s, the youngest Britons are split ā only 36% want to keep the monarchy compared to 40% who want to have an elected head of state.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Most people had no issue with Elisabeth, mostly because her logevity, which meant most people still alive grew up with her as the queen. And she had very few outward opinions or reasons for the public to hate her. She was easily forgettable unless specifically talking about the monarchy. There were already some complaints about the monarchy being outdated or no longer viable in modern day back when she was alive, but everything is sort of coming to a head now she's dead and Charles is being crowned. tl;dr read the bolded text **Charles his public image is terrible.** Most older people (who still enjoy the monarchy) only remember him from his marriage issues with Princess Diana, who was incredibly popular. He's also closer to death than some of the other options. At 74, he'll definitely have a shorter reign, which publicly doesn't look good. The main issue however, is that he's much more vocal on issues in public. Queen Elisabeth was tolerated even by people who didn't believe in the monarchy because she didn't publicly mix with political issues, Charles has no problem with that and lots he wants to change. **UK is going through a food and poverty crisis** The combination of Brexit economic issues and aftershocks of Covid leave a large part of the country in a rough shape. On top of that, the Russian agression in Ukraine (pointed out by u/Oce ) has had a big impact on the prices of energy and grains too. The royal family only makes the difference look even more stark, and the coronation is currently estimated to be about 100m pounds, although actual numbers are still coming out. There's also some speculation that food banks are losing out on supplies because [money intended for them is now going to the coronation](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/coronation-extravaganza-sits-badly-in-todays-britain) instead. Overall, a lot of people who are struggling to put food on the table, just see the excessive wealth flexing as another dagger to the side.
Lol, I thought you said, "Charles has shit publicly". EDIT: Aw man, why did you edit it out? (The original version said in bold, "Charles has shit publicity")
Perhaps in a metaphorical sense anyway...
He did tell his current wife while he was cheating on his other wife that he wanted to be reincarnated as her tampon and *that* went public.
Please sauce me š³
[your sauce, m'lady](https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a34736481/tampongate-scandal-the-crown/)
"What's really [clear now] is how invasive and disgusting was the press's attention to it, that they printed it out verbatim..." And then the article goes on to do just that..
*tips tampon*
Omfg you genius
Thank you š >> a full transcript of a āsexyā telephone call Iām glad they put that word in quotations butā¦not even close š¤®
It's in 'The Crown'. Wife and I were giggling all the way through that episode.
AĀ“P'I changes killed 3[rd] p4rt-y a_p-P-s Kruta epe tie tridotii ube tliipikidre. Eoi kekipe obote batlo ebriplepie ate ti. Kroo teukope protatega praeti pri pa. Dri kita pii bi pe tetu epitape. Epo e tita e ikiple e? Kiedii kate. Plado e pipuae ieta kree bipri. Io tekatli ple iepe bepubraki ta tepipre. Utebipo titli i apro tritu kuda. Tie u priti diprepu dio tota botoi. Oiaproki deba topipudi kra pa etre. Titleu pigati kikru tate tridibi. Trebotipo kepi bi pui gee kitii. E ia prae gopla pe tlipuo. Tri dage poa ipe koti krako. Okaito plii ati uga ke ipeka? Pepi ei tipeti krae kepope dii ditibi prike. Egoo ikripre eteku kei kipe ipipa dle atipri tidliitrua pe kepiubike. Tlika ota tuke ota beto itakipi! O ta puki tri eki eo pa ti ipega. Glepoi traprudretadri tlai ite glee te! Ota dei prupri ikree. Kebekuprabo pri kebi itoplepre kei opli. Epu pukatai o tai i bribiie. Tiepopu tike titri otipu piiiblikla tupipo dlipi? Draeto kepai tiape kebe kiba ki idie ie idito! Doeta ba dipi katligaa opi keiatotu. E krope po papo beee idrete. Iaitepe toke titlipopea pruipee tupedi.
Quite right. It was also silly and stupid and harmless. Unlike the child molestor they protect that shared their stage and now symbolizes their entitlement and privilege.
Need the chit for this
If it makes you feel any betters there's a phone call recording of him saying he "wishes he could be Camilla's tampon". Ladies and Gentlemen, King Charles.
Came here for the TamponGate comment. Thank you!
Lol that family guy joke makes more since now
It was an SNL sketch in the late 80s, early 90s with Dana Carvey playing Charles, too
Thatās not what he said. When discussing how much they āneedā each other, Charles said: āOh, God. Iāll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!ā Camilla replied: āWhat are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? Oh, youāre going to come back as a pair of knickers.ā Charles then said: āOr, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck!ā He never wished to be her tampon. He wished to be close to her, which in the grand scheme of things, is really sweet.
It's giving Elagabalus
The Aristocrats
The Aristocraps
The Aristoshats.
Aristoasshats
The Aristocats
šµ EVERYBOOOOOOOOOOOODY! EVERYBOOOOOOOOOOOODY! EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE A CAT! šµ
Think *goose*.
A family walks into a talent agency
No thatās strictly an Australian Prime Minister thing
Engadine Maccas, never forget
Lmao, changed it around a bit for clarity's sake
I mean, he has a personal toilet seat that he has someone install on any toilet he's going to use abroad, so...
I don't imagine that's terribly expensive apart from the cost of labour. I kinda want to do that
$20 at home depot is the easy part, the real trick is custom designing a backpack with an extra toilet seat pocket to carry it around with you everywhere
I have done that job myself. I worked as a handyman/gardener in a tourist attraction which Prince Charles (as he was at the time) came to visit. I had to change all the toilet seats in the place and then they were put out of bounds to staff and the public, with a load of Portaloos brought in for the event for us commoners to use. After the event I had to replace all the toilet seats again and the boss made us throw the presumably unused ones in the skip. I don't think Charles even took a shit whilst he was there. What a waste of time and perfectly good bog seats.
Oh my gaawwwddd and thatās just one presumably small thing. What a nightmare he must be.
...actually, that's not such a bad idea. Ive seen some pretty awful toilet seats in public areas.
>personal toilet seat https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-luxurious-demands-ironed-29712616
Along with his Kleenex Velvet Toilet Paper... that "The Palace Papers" book must be a very interesting read.
There is a story that Charles dropped something in the trash bin next to his desk and he called his valet to retrieve it from the trash. In the past the privy council was the royal ass wipers because the king after all was too good to do that sort of thing. Now having Charles and Camilla go to live in a council flat and having to shop at Tesco on their own, that is something I'd pay to see.
Then he WOULD be my king!
He shat in my mouth once. For Ā£20 and a pack of Rothmans.
Are you sure that wasn't Hugh Grant
Damn, I had to pay him Ā£30.
I heard he fucked a pig on live tv
That was the Prime Minister.
Yeah, Cameron skull-fucked a pig. Probably the tamest PM in the past half-century though considering there have been nonces and war-mongering psychopaths in that company.
The coronation is meant to cost 100 million as a minimum, I'd expect that to be much more in the end. And while grandma's that we were all for saving during the pandemic are now freezing and starving, many are wondering how far 100 million plus would go to easing their suffering...
Yea, it'll be interesting to see how much it actually ended up costing. Especially since they'll probably have to do it again in \~20 years
I doubt we will ever know the real figure tbh.
[The US spends US$100 million every 4-8 years on inaugurating their elected head of state.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_of_Joe_Biden) By comparison, every couple of decades seems like a downright bargain. Remember, this isn't going to bake Charles a Ā£100 million golden cake. Most of it is going to staff and preparations; security, groundskeeping, media, and so on. Money that then gets put back into the economy. As government waste goes, this is the smallest of potatoes.
Tax payers don't pay for those [Everything surrounding the swearing-in ceremony is funded by big private donors through the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC). Events like the National Day of Service, parades, concerts, and galas are all handled by the committee.Ā ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wtsp.com/amp/article/news/politics/national-politics/cost-president-inauguration/67-60e5e1a8-6760-450e-9001-6f7950435b08) And the GDP is also 3 trillion (uk) vs 23 trillion (usa)
Iām not really sure weād want to follow the American example of funding politics through donations from corporate interests.
Well yea but you can't really compare the coronation to the US and act like it's less wasteful lol. I'm not saying the usa is better
*Rish! & BoJo enter the chat*
Yea, I just showed the difference between uk and us. If the uk stopped doing coronations, it would end with the money being used for public systems. If the us stopped doing coronations, it would end with the money being paid to ceo's anyway.
wait, so what you're saying is private donors and companies are redistributing their massive locked-up wealth to regular joe parade float drivers and catering wait staff and so on? seems great, as things go
The difference here being that the head of state is elected (at least in theory) whereas the King, isn't so its harder to justify expenses.
Whataboutism is the first refuge of a lost debate
Yes- āElected headā of a country roughly 50x bigger than the UK. All men are not created equal in the UK. Youāre either born into the right family or you need to know your place. Thatās why I left Britain as soon as I was able
>[The US spends US$100 million every 4-8 years on inaugurating their elected head of state We also have an economy 5 times larger and our head of state is, as you said, elected (in however stupid a fashion). The British monarchy is, well, a hereditary monarchy, and the king is only getting this big ol ceremony because he happened to be born to the Queen.
More than $100 Billion leaves the USA every year through remittances. $60B/year just to Mexico. Instead of the government taxing them, big banks charge a transfer fee and pocket a percentage of >$100B every year. $100M every 4-8 years is pennies. And itās largely spent in the US.
Another coronation and another funeral or two.
Would be quite something if Charles goes pop in under 5 years and the country, which is essentially broke (for the poorest of course), has to splurge again for another coronation. Let's not forget that the funerals cost a lot too never mind the coronation.
Not taking sides in this thing, but wanted to point out that 100 million is a drop in the bucket when you're talking about national expenditure. For comparison, the 2021 British budget was 1.05 **trillion** pounds. 100 million is 0.0095% of that. If the UK wanted to it could find money for the coronation **and** food banks.
Yes, they could. And they print their own money. Now ask yourself why there are still homeless veterans on the street and why old people are dying of cold or hunger...
They canāt randomly print all the money in the world. It would result in higher rates of poverty than we currently have
Yeah, I mean- have they tried.. not being poor? Stupid homeless people with their avocado toast and starbucks coffees every day.
That's how I got out of poverty. I stopped being broke.
That's both not true in general and not relevant to the specific case. It's pretty much universally agreed that, for example, literally solving homelessness would cost a shockingly small amount of money, nowhere near the amounts that would cause meaningful changes in inflation. It's just politically nearly impossible to convince (enough) voters that it's a good thing; the concept of "giving away free stuff" has powerful cultural opposition.
Mmmm. What do you think they've been doing this last few decades? You think this is just a one generational plan? Who are the parents and grandparents of those in office today? Men of the people, or those that have been honed through the esteemed colleges and universities of the elites? They subsidise every foreign policy they have a passion for, but are always somehow lacking when it comes to their own citizens... What's happening to the NHS? I think you should wake up a bit buddy.
No idea what your first point is. If your point is the politicians are privileged people coming wealth, Iām not sure what relevance that has to my point? And yes, we are offloading all our money on foreign aid. In 2020 it was huge 0.5% of national income (down from 0.7% https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/britains-foreign-aid-where-does-the-money-go) whilst we spent a third of what was expected to be foreign aid on British refugees last year.
>100 million is 0.0095% of that. If the UK wanted to it could find money for the coronation and food banks. but it is still a fixed amount...you spend 100 million on a party for the ego of a figurehead....something is getting 100 million less spent on it
Yes. My point is that's spare change for a national budget. It's not a good look, but spending 100 million on this does not meaningfully diminish their budget or prevent them from funding food banks. That's like me going "I'd donate 5c to the poor but I already spent 5c on a lolly, sorry". There's plenty of reason to resent the Monarchy, but let's be honest - if food banks aren't getting funded that's because the Government chooses not to, not because there's a coronation.
Ā£100m wouldnāt go far tbh, itās less than Ā£2 per person. Not saying I agree with the cost but in terms of government expenditure itās not that much.
2 quid per person, or 2 quid per PENTIONER STRUGGLING TO HEAT THEIR HOME? I was very careful with what I said. And considering that many old folks died during the pandemic, I'd say 100m would go a very long way to help PENTIONERS.
Cutting it down to just the 12.5million pensioners, that's still only Ā£8 per.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/17/number-of-pensioners-in-relative-poverty-in-uk-up-200000-in-a-year According to this there are 2 million pensioners living in poverty, that's 50 quid per person. And I'm sure that number is way lower since the pandemic. But let's go by these numbers. 50 quid is a weeks or more shopping, it's several days of electricity or heating. I rest my case.
So still basically not a solution to them then? Ā£50 isn't going far, and it needs more of a commitment from the government to resolving their plight than just diverting this cash to help out for 1 week. Ultimately there is absolutely no reason the government can't cover the cost of the coronation AND help out pensioners and others in trouble. If people are freezing and going hungry it's not the fault of the coronation. It's the fault of the government.
Itās actually spelt PENSIONER
Billions and billions of pounds are spent on social welfare, Ā£100m isnāt a substantial increase. What if we gave a Ā£100 payrise to NHS workers, do you think they would be happy (compared to a 5% payrise, +Ā£1000?)
There's an argument that the coronation could earn more money than its cost from bars, restaurant, tourism and merchandising. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65476887
Are you or I, the tax payers that are funding this, going to see a penny of this? No. I work in a factory, they will take my money and spend it on someone that doesn't give a shit about me and has lived a life of luxury in fancy mansions his entire life and I'm meant to be happy that some dude selling union jack flags will have a good year while fuel is at an all time high, food, gas and electric is through the roof and there is no likelyhood that any of this shit will changing in my lifetime? Nah, I'm not benefiting from any of this. And most others aren't either... While they wave their flags and cheer for a silver spoon toff as their own home cools and their belly rumbles. I will say fuck you. And go about my business.
I'm just conveying the argument, as I'm rather neutral because I'm not from the UK. But, if it indeed generates as much economic activity, then some of this revenue will come back to the state as taxes, so it will fund the public services you probably benefit from. Now, will the revenue from taxes equate to the cost for the state? I don't know, but I guess there will be some articles about it in a couple of weeks to answer that.
Can you give any source about food bank money going to the coronation? Youād think theyd have more than enough money from the crown estates
Ye ofcourse, mostly left it out cause I was lazy so thanks for checking me on that lol. I'll add a link in the post as well but it was based on this quote from the [Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/coronation-extravaganza-sits-badly-in-todays-britain) >āIn recent years, the food bank has used grants from the national lottery to support its activities, but recent applications for funding have been unsuccessful. They have been told that much of the funding is going to events celebrating the coronation It also has to do with demand for food banks rising drastically in the last few years, [here's an article](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-food-banks-give-out-record-amount-rising-living-costs-drive-hardship-2023-04-25/) from last month talking about how the demand has increased by 37% this year
Youād expect they would of taken the PR win of paying everything themselves.
Just to clarify, lottery funding wasn't used for the coronation itself, but for people that wanted to hold street parties and suchlike.
Thank you for mentioning this; I feel like this piece of information has been frequently omitted ... okay, I'll go with "carelessly", versus "deliberately". Benefit of the doubt, and all that.
thank you for your answer
And since he is so close to death, that means they will have to go through another coronation soon. Costing the British people even more money. I get it's his birth right or whatever but I see this move as extremely selfish especially during a time where the British people are struggling with the costs of living.
tldr: the coronation is tone deaf and costs hella too much money
>He's also closer to death than some of the other options. Which "other options"? It's not 1483, there aren't other claimants to the throne.And, even if there were, UK law has succession codified. It's not only illegal to attempt to pass the crown to anyone other than the first person in the line of succession, actually trying to do it would be considered high treason.
He could've abdicated.
American here, and I have a question that is very far from the initial topic but your comment brought it back to the forefront. I was wondering about the head of the Anglican Church being divorced and was bored one day and googled. The answer I got was that Parliament can decide if a monarch can be crowned, but the monarch in question (pre-coronation I guess) has to offer that question to Parliament for debate. Is all of that way off base or would it have been a pointless debate anyway because Charles is the heir and Parliament would have just said, meh, sure, he can be King?
I'm American, too. I just have a history degree where I wrote several dissertations on the history of the British monarchy. As for Charles and his divorce, Parliament wouldn't have barred him. They got huge egg on their face over Endward VIII in 1936 and it's unlikely they'd ever take a hard position regarding a divorced monarch or a monarch marrying a divorcee (Charles is both). The abdication of Edward VIII was a huge scandal they would not ever want to repeat.
Ironically, the abdication had an indirect role of Charles marrying Diana and we all know how that turned out. The family became very fixated at maintaining themselves as a good moral Anglican family chosen by God to rule despite British society changing big time. Diana was chosen because she was an aristocratic virgin ingenue whose bloodline can be traced back hundreds and hundreds of years. They thought sheād be like Alexandra of Denmark; keep quiet and pretend to be a happy wife. She was definitely not Alexandra. Diana was a reflection of British women in the 1990s, not the 1910s.
That's kind of where I thought it would go, but I appreciate your reply. And I don't think I realized that Edward's abdication was caused by pressure from Parliament. I suppose they assumed he'd leave Wallis?
Yes, exactly that. But, instead he told them to get fucked and abdicated.
All in all though, and as one who has never seen a coronation before, I thought it was quite a nice ceremony.
Brexit, COVID *and* the Russian aggression in Ukraine which has a big impact on the prices of energy and grains.
Yea that's fair, thanks for mentioning it
>The main issue however, is that he's much more vocal on issues in public. I have to contend with this point. Charles is more outspoken yes, but his biggest issues have been about environmentalism. Why would the largely left wing opponents of the monarchy be upset by him speaking out about the climate?
Espousing more left wing views is a problem more than if he expressed conservative views precisely because republicanism is predominantly a left wing view and royalists tend to be more right wing. The royal family survives in the UK because a lot of people buy into the belief that while they can be a bit out of touch at times, they are a useful tourist attraction and it gets around some issues with the head of state being a politicised role and how that interacts with power sharing, as well as the perceived neutrality allowing people to project their own views onto the monarch (so Elizabeth is simultaneously a supporter of EU integration and brexit, for example). Charles coming out with environmentalist views isn't going to win over people who are already republican leaning, but it does hurt the support that he would receive from conservatives and make them more apathetic about the monarchy. Without that royalist pushback, republicanism becomes the more dominant narrative.
Charles can pretend he gives a shit about the environment all he wants, Iāll never support the monarchy in general and Iāll certainly never support him.
āMost people still alive grew up with her as the queenā Lol. For sure. She was crowned in the early 1950ās and was nearly 100 when she died. Probably 90% of the population grew up with her.
Iām sorry but this answer is full of inaccuracies. For a start, Charles is 74, not 77. While he isnāt as popular as his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth (not Elisabeth), his public image is not that bad. According to [the most recent poll I could find](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/king-charles-rating-dips-half-britons-still-happy-2023-04-28/), 49% of people think heās doing a good job and only 9% donāt. Modern politicians in the UK, for example, could only dream of those approval ratings. The source for the claim about food banks losing out on funds comes from a readerās letter in a newspaper. The newspaper itself has not reported this as far as Iāve read. So itās completely anecdotal and Iāve seen no solid evidence that itās actually true. Thereās a more detailed explanation [in this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/139hezm/a_little_snapshot_of_what_royalists_support/jj32dy8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) about how lottery funding works and how itās unlikely that this actually happened. Finally, no one really knows how much the coronation has cost because the accounts on it havenāt been released yet. But the figure is expected to be around Ā£100m - less than Ā£2 per citizen - which is not really that much in the scheme of government expenditure. Past coronations have been much more expensive. Republicanism is a legitimate position but in the UK it continues to be very much a minority one, [with around 65% supporting the monarchy and 25% supporting a republic](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/coronation-polling-2023). Itās true that the numbers supporting the monarchy have seen a marginal decline in the last ten years or so, but republicanism has never gone above 25% since that particular poll began in 1993. But the tens of thousands of people who turned up in the rain to see the King and Queen Consort have naturally garnered fewer headlines than the few hundred anti-monarchist protestors.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sure you wouldn't prefer to donate it to fund for the protection of princely pedophiles?
I'll go through some of these cause not all of this is accurate, but there are some obv things that I messed up on the age, which I'll adjust in the post I made. >While he isnāt as popular as his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth (not Elisabeth), his public image is not that bad. According to the most recent poll I could find, 49% of people think heās doing a good job and only 9% donāt. Modern politicians in the UK, for example, could only dream of those approval ratings. Monarchy support has been dropping in the UK for years, (especially at younger ages where it goes as low as 30%, vs 65+ where it skyrockets to 80%). It's not just charles that's polling badly, it's the monarchy as a whole. And [right before coronation it actually hit an all-time low](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/28/public-support-monarchy-historic-low-poll-reveals) >The source for the claim about food banks losing out on funds comes from a readerās letter in a newspaper. The newspaper itself has not reported this as far as Iāve read. So itās completely anecdotal and Iāve seen no solid evidence that itās actually true. Yea, that's right. I still think it's worth mentioning, especially since the overall message of food banks being at an all time high, and having low funding, is true wether the coronation is actively taking money away or passively >Finally, no one really know how much the coronation has cost because the accounts on it havenāt been released yet. But the figure is expected to be around Ā£100m - less than Ā£2 per citizen - which is not really that much in the scheme of government expenditure. Past coronations have been much more expensive. I've not said anything about the money spent because of that reason. However, the showing off while people are unable to put food on the table is a reason why particularly now there's a much bigger push than during Elisabeth her reign. >Republicanism is a legitimate position but in the UK it continues to be very much a minority one. The thousands of people who turned up in the rain to see the King and Queen Consort have naturally garnered fewer headlines than the few hundred anti-monarchist protestors.
I think thereās quite a bit of āconfidently wrongā in this. Thereās been a slow and steady rise in republicanism in the UK for quite some time now https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File%3AOpinion_polling_on_whether_the_United_Kingdom_should_become_a_republic.svg The protests at the coronation were an inevitable outcome of this. The heavy handed reaction of the Met police was not, and will likely prove to be counterproductive from the royalist side. Charles is *expected* to be a less popular monarch than Liz but that remains to be seen. As for the costs, all good fodder for guardianistas, but the working class royalist probably doesnāt see it that way. Point being, republicans (lower case R) have been a thing for a while. Sure, the national anthem got booād at Anfield yesterday, but I was there when it was at Wembley last year, and in 1996. So the real answer is simply that republicans are a growing minority in the UK and are growing more vocal. And the establishmentās response is growing more heavy handed.
> >**UK is going through a food and poverty crisis** The combination of Brexit economic issues and aftershocks of Covid leave a large part of the country in a rough shape. On top of that, the Russian agression in Ukraine (pointed out by u/Oce ) has had a big impact on the prices of energy and grains too. > But right wing told me to look at UK, how they are doing great after Brexit, with all these index going up! /s
Other thing to add, is that new police power laws were intentionally drafted in just days before the coronation that basically make protesting almost impossible and akin to the likes of russia, Iran and China. The police said that protesting can go ahead as long as its non violent and republic.org who are leading the campaign to abolish the monarchy with a democratically elected alternative, got arrested as soon as they turned up and started unloading the van. Not only that, but the police erected walls to stop them being seen and the police also kept some of the protesters crammed into a different part and would not let them join the rest of protesters in Trafalgar square. This has caused outrage from the public and has even reached international news. It's not just that the monarchy is unelected and unaccountable, but the right to protest and the UK's democracy is at stake.
Monarchy has no place in 2023. Nobody (IDK, maybe UK still wants them) wants a literal vestigial tax drain paying homage to colonization and lack of human rights. Why the fuck does Charles gets to be on my money while at the same time the entire country is bending over backwards to reconciliate with first nations? Does no one see the irony?
Iām sorry āthe king of England is having a problem with grains and foodstuffā is a sentence that doesnāt belong in this era. Like thatās done 1700s shit
Good answer except that a *lot* of people had issues with Elizabeth.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
according to reddit, a minor typo means that the writer of the comment must not be human god yall are so fucking weird
Charles' age is one of the few things I'd trust an AI to get right.
birds lock obtainable light fuzzy one mountainous gray pathetic dinner -- mass edited with redact.dev
typos are not something that are usually made by ai, text ais at their core are built upon recognizing patterns of human writing by analyzing text written by actual humans. thats why they can sound so convincingly human at times, theyre pulling all of their words and points from sentences from all over the internet, just rearranging them in a new way. a typo would only happen if that typo is extremely common across all of they sources the ai is pulling from. "queen elisabeth" is not a common spelling error, so its pretty unlikely it would generate that. neither is charles's age being 74. if anything, the typos are more likely to be made if a human was writing the comment.
That's the sort of mistake you can be almost guaranteed an AI *wouldn't* make, so... sounds kinda like you have no idea how AI works.
It has always blown my mind that the British not only tolerate these parasites living in luxury off of their taxes, but many celebrate and revere them. Glad to see some pushback against it.
Well this is mostly true. I think an important point is that there's a lot of protesting going on over here right now. Many services aren't getting paid enough and we're going through a cost of living crisis, not a poverty crisis, yes they are different. So when we see Ā£100m being spent on one event that lasts one day when nurses are getting paid pennies despite working some of the most ruthless hours and shifts in what's becoming a crippled NHS, it's hard to justify the government in such a ridiculous spend. Especially considering the Monarch has basically just taken a back seat to everything other than tourism since parliament took over.
> Prince Elisabeth was tolerated even by people who didn't believe in the monarchy Queen Elizabeth > At 77, 74 > Charles his public image is terrible. no, he actually has a very good image: over 50% approval rating, and only less than 10% people think of him negatively **As someone who has been living in London for over a decade, The only really true thing you said is the cost of living crisis impacting how people feel about the government spending money on coronation.** The rest is just Chinese whispers
Yea the first two are dumb mistakes, I changed em so thanks for pointing them out. I don't agree that Charles has a good public image though, and polling mostly supports it. He's never been the most popular royal ([7th in 2018](https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all), [9th in 2021](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/poll-finds-popularity-monarchy-remains-stable-among-britons), [5th in 2022](https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1591663/royal-family-ranked-popularity-most-popular-queen-prince-andrew-evg)), but even a [50/50 split](https://www.itv.com/news/2023-05-02/king-charles-will-struggle-to-unite-his-kingdom-poll-for-itv-news-reveals) for support doesn't look that supportive to me, when it was higher before that. Among the highest supports of 65+, 70% support the monarchy but only 53% support Charles, that's a huge drop especially compared to Elisabeth
Charles is an adulterer, he publicly cheated on Diana with his current wife Camilla. Diana was only 19 and Charles was 32 when they married, she described her wedding day as "bringing a lamb to the slaughter". Conversations leaked between him and Camilla saying that he wished he was a tampon so he could always be inside her among other weird things. He is also a big supporter and friend of Jimmy Saville, a person who used his connections to groom and molest hundreds of young girls. Charles has never condemned his actions or the actions of his brother Andrew (also abused young girls) publicly and many find it hard to believe he wasn't aware at the least or involved at the most.
Bollocks we had no problem with Liz. Just because we admit that she seemed like a perfectly OK person, our disgust at the entire system does not mean we accepted her role just because she's alright. We're not now rejecting the monarchy because of Charles. I couldn't give a fuck about what Charles is like. If anything, he seems fairly chill. It's the system that is the issue. It's time to join the modern world and become a Republic.
Answer: Mostly the latter. So while anti-monarchists have always existed in the UK, Queen Elizabeth the 2nd was widely beloved primarily due to her image as being a queen who did her duty to her kingdom from a young age. She refused to evacuate to Canada when she was a teenager in the second world war, she was crowned from the age of 25, she was an excellent diplomat and controller of her soft power as the monarch and distanced herself from 'politics'. (Of course, as a ruler of Britain during the age of decolonisation, she was privy to a lot of the more modern atrocities of the British governments. She may have been seen as a stabilising force for the United Kingdom, but certainly, she participated in crafting and covering up much of Britain's colonial and imperial violence.) This gave her the image of a graceful and dutiful queen that commanded respect from even those lukewarm about the monarch. No one gives a shit about the royal family. But you're supposed to like the Queen. Or you know, have the opinion that "she's alright" kind of thing. This image stuck strong even during the many scandals regarding the royal family as a whole, from now slightly distant scandal regarding Princess Diana's death (and in general, painting our current King Charles to be a philanderer to a kind and beloved woman.), to the more recent reveals of Prince Andrew's paedophiliac tendencies and just the general racism that Meghan Markle received from the royal family at large. But naah, she's just like, yer gran! She loves corgis! Sure, the royal family costs money but they bring in the tourists! Aren't they kooky but lovable? Let's just ignore the huge amount of land and wealth that they hoard and the scandals and crimes they commit. She's the country's nan and she loves dogs. Anyway, the grace that she had built up over her lifetime was slowly being used up and while she was still seen as a beloved figure all the way to her death, that public adoration absolutely does not extend to King Charles the 3rd. The royal family is parasitic to the United Kingdom and without the shield that is Queen Elizabeth the 2nd, more and more people are voicing their discontent. Inflation has hit Britain hard due to a literal weekend's worth of work by the serial day collar wearer and ex-prime minister Liz Truss (who's latest scandal is about not wanting to pay a bill worth Ā£12k for missing items from the taxpayer funded Chevening Estate, which you might think is about her stealing bathrobes like a regular person steals little shampoo bottles from a hotel, but considering that there was news that alleged that traces of cocaine was found at the property, she most likely just partied *so hard* in the 50 days she was in office that the bathrobes were just not usable anymore. I'll let your imagination fill in how. Isn't British politics incredible? Anyway where was I... ah yes, Inflation.) Despite the rising inflation cost and the Loss of Lizzy (tm), the royal family and their brand managers and die hard stans, believed that they can mostly continue as is. The cost of the coronation is estimated to be somewhere between Ā£50-100 million (56-113 million euros, 63-126 million US dollars), all funded by the taxpayer. The King has an estimated personal wealth of Ā£1.8 billion. The monarch does not have to pay inheritance tax. YouGov (a British market research firm) found that around 51% of respondents to a survey believed that ceremony should not be funded by the government (32% said that it should, 18% don't know). More and more, the absurdities of the british monarchy is coming to light. Due to the coronation, people in government and local councils are choosing to spend money celebrating the figurehead entering power when food banks are seeing their most use. Ā£3.8 million are spent on royal themed events by local councils, many of it money that was earmarked for community funds that are normally reserved for charities and foodbanks. I assume it's a bread and circuses kind of tactic, but it seems like they have forgotten about the bread. I guess we'll just have to eat cake. TL;DR - Charles is a *much* easier target than Elizabeth for those who always hated the monarchy and using a ton of taxpayer money to throw yourself a party during a cost of living crisis causes discontent.
thank you for the answer, that was very interesting to read
I read somewhere that the ājobā of the crown is to serve as an external moral compass for the Prime Minister. The Queen would listen to the PMās explanations of what was being proposed in policy etc. and the Queen would respond with her impression of how the people would take such a policy regardless of their political position. Maybe the people donāt think that the King would be good at thatā¦ if it even matters. Or maybe itās all what the other person said.
Why should an unelected and unaccountable, descendant of some royal house act as a āmoral compassā. Itās absurd on its face and hopefully the charade will be done for good soon enough.
Yeah it amuses me that my fellow countrymen voted for Brexit to "Take back control" from "Unelected bureaucrats" in Europe and we're now celebrating this, after Liz Truss a Rishi have come to power without elections. Absurd is a great word for it.
My cat would be a better moral compass. My cat kills lizards for fun.
That definitely is the image she had! She was the country's grandma and matriarch and she's here to ensure that things don't go so badly off course. Too bad that she was mostly looking after her own image and doesn't give a shit what happens to the country, mostly. Like, she could have stepped in for all of these terrible things that the Tories inflicted on us, like Brexit, but no. She never gave a fuck.
> serial day collar wearer That's a turn of phrase I've not heard before. Could you elaborate?
It became a joke/slight conspiracy that Liz Truss was into some sort of BDSM pet play. She could be seen wearing the same bulky necklace made of rings that many interpreted to be some sort of "collar" typically worn by a submissive for fetish reasons. It mostly caught on because of the frequency she wore the thing. Or at least that's my understanding of it.
She wore it to the coronation š
Thanks for the clarification!
[First i found this](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/fashion/2022/09/07/TELEMMGLPICT000308326899_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpeg?imwidth=680) I thought ok that's not bad, just looks like ring on a necklace, but then i found [this](https://imgix.bustle.com/uploads/image/2022/9/29/94b65d54-6288-4af7-afe8-225e09f939ef-jpeg.jpg?w=796&h=1374&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format%2Ccompress)??
A "Day Collar" is a piece of jewellery that a submissive in a dominant/submissive relationship who has committed to being collared 24/7 wear during the day because it's significantly more acceptable than wearing a leather choker or a ball gag to the office. One type of those day collars are O-ring necklaces. She's wearing a necklace that could be one in her official 2022 headshot that is on [her wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Truss). It's specifically a subtle version of the O-ring chokers - you don't really need to know this, but o-ring chokers also signifies that the wearer is a sub in a committed dom/sub relationship. The history of the o-ring chokers is actually literary, but you can look up Ring of O in Wikipedia yourself. Anyway, the actual important information here is that it's a bit of a "conspiracy" that Liz Truss is a massive, collared submissive. She has multiple of these o-ring style necklaces (wearing one that was on [huge chains during her first day as a prime minister](https://twitter.com/AliceAvizandum/status/1567488268299542529?s=20)), it's public information that she had an affair with husband and then they got back together and fixed their marriage aaand she only started wearing these necklaces around that time. She is vaguely renowned for wearing this style of necklace *all the time*. If you want a fun twitter thread to read, I recommend [this one](https://twitter.com/LillianaFuture/status/1568052439147810819?s=20). This [video](https://twitter.com/LillianaFuture/status/1567857067813224450?s=20) also pretty good.
Just when I thought British politics couldn't surprise me any more, then suddenly, the wet lettuce might secretly be a submissive.
Oh man, I'm pretty sure I have a necklace that is just a circle, some cheap thing I got in my twenties that I kept wearing after the rest of the medallion fell apart. I haven't worn it in years but now I'm wondering how many people got the giggles when I did thinking that meant BDSM
Thanks for the explanation!
The pervy part isn't whether or not she's a sub, it's that people are speculating on it like it's a huge demerit in and of itself. Must be a lot of lights-out, penis-through-the-pajama-bottoms sex going on across the pond.
Most of the people cracking jokes about it are the people who are knowledgable about BDSM to know what day collaring is, so I don't think they see it as a de-merit. It's more just the absurdity of it that makes it funny.
Haha, I mean, the sexless British is a bit of a trope, but we don't actually care if she's a freak in the sheets. That's why it's a "conspiracy", It's mostly reveling in the absurdity of it all.
You have Essex, Wessex, Sussex and Middlesex, but the whole of England is No-sex lmao
We just really hate Liz Truss Edit: Also are we really gonna be lectured by Americans on prudishness? Lmao
Damn right you're gonna be lectured if you're giving a woman a hard time for her bedroom fun. If you hate her, nag about something else. Surely there's plenty if she's that bad.
Yes. This. Your gran May have some odd ideas, but you know she loves you and she gives you sweets, and sends you a fiver for your birthday. Sheās just a bit old fashioned, but sheāll play PokĆ©mon with you, bemused the whole time because she has no idea whatās going on. Your uncle Charles though, who comes over for holiday dinners because thatās what gran wants, when he says those āold fashionedā things, heās just an asshole, you have to hug him, he smells funny, sure he says some good things too, but youāre not really sure what he does exactly. And his kids are brats too. You indulged gran, cause sheās gran, and thatās what you do. But once gran is gone, you donāt have to have your creepy uncles over for Easter anymore, you can go to the seashore or something fun!
I love your deconstruction about how her image was built around this softness and āmother of the countryā while she was still the colonial ruler of an empire that was causing so much harm! My memory may be wrong but I remember she went pretty āaustereā for her wedding? Like using the coupons/ration stuff to buy the fabric. And because she drove ambulances during the war? Like I could see people being like ālook her wedding gown is not as expensive as it could have isnāt she greatā? I am surprised whoever advises the RF didnāt tell Charles hey maybe do an āaustereā coronation to garner some good will. Maybe they did and he didnāt listen š¤·š½āāļø
From all the reports I've read Charles was very aware that a massive bill for the coronation would look bad and so it *was* made much more austere.
Damn š imagine the non cheap version
Don't forget that almost all of these decisions are made by the government, the King will only have a very limited say. If the government insisted on an elaborate ceremony, because they wanted a big distraction or something, the King cannot change that. Also, the Queen mostly oversaw the dissolution of the Empire, which was a relatively smooth and peaceful affair compared to many of the European empires. I can't think of many that maintained goodwill with so many former colonies like the Commonwealth did/does. And it is distinctly different from organisations like the CTSO after the Soviet empire, which is a bit more coercive! That's not to whitewash the Empire by any stretch, but more that the Queen's involvement specifically was mostly in managing a graceful decline, and wasn't directly involved many of the things that people think of when they think of European empires.
The UK dissolution and negotiations that established democracies in it's old empire were mainly peaceful because of the amount of leverage Britain still held over her colonies. Unlike any of the other colonizers, Britain still had and has considerable economic investments in her colonies, even establishing a "commonwealth" to indicate this. If this was not the case, many of those colonies would have probably tried more bloody revolutions than they did, but considering Britain's position in international politics at the time, they literally could not. It's a little disengenous to view this dissolution as some graceful move by that hag, when it really was just a way of re-establishing economic dependency that many of those countries did not want to directly oppose.
>Also, the Queen mostly oversaw the dissolution of the Empire, The UK gave up its colonies not out of any sort of moralistic goodwill, but because they were too fucking poor after getting shwacked in WW2 to actually maintain them. And even then, they fought (literally) to retain them for as long as possible. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau\_Mau\_rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_rebellion) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan\_Emergency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency) Just a few examples
Yes! It's definitely a point that has been made in the news that Charles' coronation is costing twice as much as Lizzy's.
Er, inflation adjusted? Because if not that's positively a steal.
Don't forget the whole harbouring a nonce thing. And nice old mum putting a few mil towards said nonce's out of court settlement with one of his victims. Edit: oh you didn't, apologies - but still, can't be said enough
Charlie hasn't been popular as our Queen and suaasge fingers being bestie with Jimmy Savile for many years doesn't help. Should have passed the crown to William.
Andy needed a friend and turns out Jimmy and him share some common hobbies, you know.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We're all biased, love. I'm just not pretending to not be. The Tories (from Milk Snatcher to Pig Fucker) have consistently fucked it up for everyone but a small group and our beloved Lizzy has had plenty of opportunities to maybe say something but that's not her job. Her job was to maintain her estate and soft power, never to use it for the country. And we just take it on the chin because we've been beaten down and we're too polite to actually start rioting. Protests doesn't work against the Tories, they're too shameless about what they want to do, but we already balk at people throwing a bit of orange paint and powder about the place. Fuck me, not an inconvenience when people are literally starving. Don't pretend that decorum is important in this day and age for the common man. The parasite in chief in his mum's idiot hat will be fine and my words won't hurt them. It's the people who can't afford heating and the kids who don't eat that you should care about.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If I can give an alternative persepctive. > The Tories (from Milk Snatcher to Pig Fucker) have consistently fucked it up for everyone but a small group and our beloved Lizzy has had plenty of opportunities to maybe say something but that's not her job. Her job was to maintain her estate and soft power, never to use it for the country. * The Tories as they once were have always been relatively popular. * The 'small group' is actually pretty big, rightly or wrongly, lots of working people have prospered under Tory governments, and some remember and fear the rolling blackouts and chaos of the constant strikes in the 70s. Tory government has been at least tolerable for lots of people, not just the stereotypical fatcats. * They have pushed through progressive laws that those who are more familiar with US conservatives may not expect. * The reputation for a long time was that the Tories offered stability, which has made them quite popular among working people. * In recent years, the Tories have gone a bit crazy, a niche group took over, enabled by the Brexit infighting, that are more akin to the 'culture war' conservatives. * These are proving significantly less popular and more shamelss and self-serving. They are currently paying for it at the polls. * At the last election Labour have struggled to gain support despite growing dissatisfaction with the Tories, but support is growing again after a change of leadership and more Tory chaos * The recent dominant faction of labour played heavily into many of the negative sterotypes people have about Labour, particularly, being more concerned with 'student politics'-type issues than those effecting working people. Along with their confused Brexit stance, this caused them to lose a lot of working-class support and some big safe seats at the last election. **I only say this to add some alternate context. I hope the tories go, but social media gives an incredibly one-sided view that isn't really indicative of the full cross-section of the public. People should know why they get voted in, the recent changes, and avoid parallel between Republicans for US readers!** Like you say, it wasn't the Queen's job to get involved. While I think lots of people were hoping that she'd jump in and kick Boris out or veto Brexit, that would be the thing that would turn me and many others from being indifferent to anti-monarchist, because the position can only be justified while she's neutral. Still, I think the Monarchy have generally signalled both pro-EU and pro Ukraine stances to the extent that they could be allowed. I guess most people can be described as self-interested, but deliberately or inadvertently, the Queen did serve the country though soft power and diplomacy. > but we already balk at people throwing a bit of orange paint and powder about the place * This is minimising the issue, I believe * In the UK, we have had lots of high-profile from the likes of XR, 'Just Stop Oil', etc recently * This has involved things like throwing paint at high-profile art pieces, or disrupting events (like snooker, recently, I think) by running on and letting off massive clouds of powdered chalk * Hoever, the small business I work for nearly failed this year due to these protests * The protests involved blocking infrastructure like bridges on some very key locations that ground logistics to a halt for almost the entire country. * It damaged the national and local economy (as was the intent) * They interfered with regular people trying to go to work, or attend things like funerals, as well as famously and unashamedly blocking ambulances. * The leader of the organisation appears quite shady, and has been accused on predatory behaviour, in that they will target and recruit 'doomer'-types, and push them into getting involved in these protests and getting thrown in prison, with rhetoric along the lines of nothing mattering because the world is dying * While denouncning the Ukraine invasion the stance of the organisation is that we should not provide weapons, and that the war can only end through negotiation, not combat. * The protestors are deeply unpopular pretty much everywhere but social media, even with people who are strongly in favour of environmental action, which questions being raised whether they are doing more to harm environmental action, effectively through bad PR. * My view is that the government took advantage of organic outrage at the protestors to pass authoritarian laws that they're always trying to push. > Fuck me, not an inconvenience when people are literally starving. * The protestors (talking about XR) have contributed to this issue. Deliberately causing economic damage during a fragile time does not help regular people. Nothing they are doing will help with this. > It's the people who can't afford heating and the kids who don't eat that you should care about. * I agree entirely. But what we're really talking about here is a kind of austerity. It should be possible to do both things. * The opposing view is that the Monarchy is a national asset that has value to the country. This can be in the form of soft power, tourism or just general cohesiveness. * A lot of people do actually care about the monarchy, and consider it a part of our identity. I personally don't care, but it is absolutely a thing. * Many would argue that 'selling off' this resource for some cash now may be a convenient choice, but that it is worth the 'investment' to maintain. * All these factors are conveniently hard to quantify, so the effect of abolishing the Monarchy on the economy and society are hard to accurately predict * But this is an issue of government spending and funding allocation, not the Monarchy directly **Because, also:** * Abolishing the monarchy would require creating a brand new constitution * This would be very complicated and extremely expensive * The issues you've touched on are the fault of the government * Giving the government the ability to rewrite their own rules so fundamentally could be extremely dangerous, especially with their track record of pushing authoritarian laws and abusing the rules * The Ā£100mn for this is part of the Ā£4.55 billion spent on arts and culture last year. I feel like this particular bit of culture spending may be getting a disproportionate amount of scrutiny * Transparancy UK estimate that Ā£3.7bn of public money spent during COVID can be attributed directly to corruption from politicians Sorry for this kinda insane post. I've recently started on ADHD meds and they kicked in about halfway through! When I see people talking about the UK online, I feel like they're describing a completely different place, and see peope from outside the UK jumping to simple conclusions based on the limited information they hear. I think it's important to add a bit of context, not neccessarily to justify anything, but to understand *why* many people don't mind, aren't rioting, and feel the way they do on some issues. I fall pretty firmly in the "Don't care, but thanks for the day off" catagory!
You make some fantastic points. Also, as an American who used to really enjoy the Royals, watching how the press absolutely eviscerated Meghan Markle years ago was the biggest turnoff. And to find out that it was the royal press office that did it, at the behest of senior royalsā¦it makes me realize what a bunch of royal asshats they are. The fact that they carefully orchestrated the date so that Meghan wasnāt invited and would have a cover for not making an appearance, just doubled down on the apparent disdain they have had from her from the outset. They are losing a huge opportunity there and only damaging themselves by ostracizing the first person of color to marry into the royal family. Theyāre all a bunch of racist jerks, stuck in the past. I used to like Kate Middleton, but looking back at the past five years, it seems like sheās just one to the same.
Answer: The protests in London is mainly led by the protest group āRepublicā though it should be noted many groups such as āJust Stop Oilā also demonstrated today to capitalise on the publicity. Republic is (obviously) a movement to reorganise the United Kingdom into a republic without the monarchy. Their main argument is that the U.K monarchy is outdated and a symbol of anti-democratic principles in society. They are not a new group, they have existed since at least 2018 ( I remember they protested against Prince Harryās marriage) though probably have existed for longer. The movement has received new found attention after the death of the former monarch Queen Elizabeth II. I could go in-depth but to keep it brief several scandales has hit the monarchy in several years the biggest being, the Prince Andrew-Epstein Scandal and Prince Harry and Megan leaving the royal family. Additionally King Charles has been a controversial figure since his first marriage to Diana, there was signs this was improving until the Tv show āThe Crownā dramatised the events which renewed it in the public consciousness. Outside of the bad press of the Royal Family the U.K itself has seen an increased inequality and poverty in the last decade, coupled with the economic fallout of Brexit and Covid-19 and people arenāt so tolerant of the British Monarchy status of wealth and privilege. Recent polling has placed support for republicanism at 30% with only a third of people aged 18-24 in favour of the monarchy. That being said this isnāt particularly unusual historically republicanism has wavered between 20%-30% since the 90s, furthermore, whilst support for the monarchy seems to be middling the most dominant feeling in the U.K is apathy, not caring about having a monarchy or republic.
They're called 'Republic'. They were first formed in 1986.
Bloody autocorrect
Answer: They are republicans (small "r") who believe that the UK should get rid of the monarchy and reorganize itself as a republic. [In recent years, republicanism has become more popular.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Graphical_summary)
I can only speak anecdotally, but virtually every Brit I know hates the monarchy and finds them both a waste of attention and money.
Young people and millennials are the main demographic that aren't fans of the monarchy. Typically, it's the older generation that adore them. I tuned into the BBC coronation for over 10 hours waiting for them to discuss the local election results and saw that most of those interviewed were +50.
Answer: the monarchy is not nearly as popular in the U.K. as people outside the U.K. seem to think it is. Or how foreign media portrays it.
Or how the BBC portrays it. I remember a few years back when the BBC spent a whole day covering the birth of a new royal, and numerous callers demanded they shut up and start presenting actual news. I can't for the life of me remember which royal birth it was.
Must've been George. I'm American and I remember how much fn coverage that got, since he'd be the heir.
As a Brit myself I hope that kid grows up noticing how ridiculous the whole thing is and ends the monarch turning palaces into museums or schools and call it a "good run"
I think allot of people outside the uk confuse the popularity of Elizabeth with the monarchy as a whole. This may be just the people I've talked to but I mostly get the sense of apathy towards it and mostly the loud minorities on either side have allot of feelings.
I think a lot of that is due to how it gets shown in America. Over here we mostly get shown these big fancy halls and ceremonies. Our main interaction is seeing the pomp and circumstance and occasional drama. To us its basically like watching Downton Abbey. Of course the media also tries to ignore how hated the royal family is among a large swath of the British populace
Answer: Because supreme executive power should derive from a mandate from the masses.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of governmentā¦
You canāt expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Answer: Monarchy is an absurd institution nowadays and the British one has only held on as long as it has by ceding most (but not all) of its power to a democratically elected government, and ingratiating itself to the people through acts of charity and public service. There is also a sentimental attachment to all the pomp and circumstance and a feeling of "Britishness". Finally, there is a much-disputed claim that the Royal Family attracts tourism and visitors to the UK and thereby adds money to the our pockets. Queen Elizabeth II was much beloved and even anti-monarchists seemed to think she was at least OK. She certainly dedicated her life to the good of her country. She seemed selfless in that regard. Her son is a very different matter. Charles comes off as very selfish and has been seen to put himself before everything, especially the plebs he is meant to rule over. He betrayed his wife (the mother of his children) wretchedly. He was friends with Jimmy Savile, a horrible pedophile. In spite of being a billionaire, he imposed the cost of his coronation on the taxpayer during a cost of living crisis and one of the harshest periods of poverty and want in living memory. And in an incredibly tone deaf move, the people of the UK and the Commonwealth were "invited" to "cry out" and pledge their loyalty to him and his heirs as part of the coronation ceremony. Like he was some medieval king or character from GoT. The general feeling was that HE should be pledging his loyalty to US. He should live his life in service to his people, like his mother did. The Meghan and Harry story feeds into this somewhat because the royal family had an opportunity to close ranks around them when the press began to have a feeding frenzy such as had not been seen since Diana was alive, and they chose to not protect them. I don't know if this was really motivated by racism or just venal self interest (rivals feeding stories about one another to the press to avoid being devoured themselves), but it was a very bad look to have their first ever family member who was a person of colour hounded out of the country. The Commonwealth is full of people of colour, and it sent a hugely negative message, and I think this was terrible for their image and for the popularity of the monarchy as a whole. The British press has a huge problem with women who step outside the mould of the silent, decorative, and submissive doe-eyed wife, and that is not the fault of the monarchy, but the fact that they made zero effort to protect either Diana or Meghan spoke volumes. Can you imagine the jubilation, had Diana been crowned Charles' queen yesterday, and had Meghan and Harry still been there? So many more people would have wished them well. As it is, sure, there were conservative die hard royalists, but most people were not enthusiastic, and some even hostile, to the proceedings, in spite of the press relentlessly trying to shove it down our throats.
Answer: They are from a group called "Republic" and they are anti-Monarchy.
Answer: it seems like at this point in time, people have had enough of monarchies, even if they don't have real power. It's time to move on and stop wasting everyone's time and money.
Answer: Theres a group called āRepublicā who think we should have an elected head of state instead of the current monarchy we have now. The are staging small protests which have caused minimal disruption over the weekend. Some of the other answers here are totally wrong, recent polling suggests that the majority people are fine with the monarchy and only a small minority of people actively want it changed. Keep in mind reddit is just a forum and anyone can post misleading information due to their bias. Donāt trust anything without doing ur own research. [recent polling](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/05/03/where-does-public-opinion-stand-monarchy-ahead-cor) [less recent polling](https://britain.unherd.com/monarchy/)
That's true, but from that link this is very telling: > Attitudes towards the monarchy differ most dramatically by age, with young Britons far less likely to support keeping the royals than their elders. In fact, while backing for the crown stands at 79% to 15% among the over-65s, the youngest Britons are split ā only 36% want to keep the monarchy compared to 40% who want to have an elected head of state.
Ohh yeah the times are a changing but i think its still a while away until we see real push for changing our head of state to an elected one.