For all its faults, I love the US. I can go downtown with a sign that says "Not my president", and I may get some cheers, may get some boos. What I won't get is arrested.
This is true no matter who is president.
Now, if I were saying this about President Harris, say, when she came to visit Biden's body while it was lying in state, that would be deplorable taste. It would be worse if my sign criticized Biden while his family came to pay their respects. That's pretty extreme levels of being a tasteless jerk. It's not grounds for arrest, though... in the US.
Trolling for violent reaction was one of the reasons the Westboro Baptist Church would post up outside of funerals. So far as I know it rarely worked, if ever.
"As protesters took to the streets in Indiana on July 6 to decry an alleged hate crime at Lake Monroe, a red Toyota Corolla sped toward them, dragging two protesters along, on the hood and on the side of the car. Both suffered non-life-threatening injuries. A few days later, a 66-year-old white woman was arrested and charged in the incident."
It was a point of pride for many right wingers to threaten to crash their cars into non-violent protestors.
By far my favorite example is the UC Davis pepper spray event. Where sitting sedintary protestors were pepper sprayed by campus police (the school then engaged a PR firm to attempt to wipe evidence from the internet...)
"The three dozen student demonstrators, meanwhile, were collectively awarded US$1 million by UC Davis in a settlement from a federal lawsuit, with each pepper-sprayed student receiving $30,000 individually."
An american reporter visits a communist country and asks a person on the street about freedom. He says "America is so free I can stand up on the subway and criticize and say anything about the president, no one would care about it. How is the situation here?" The person replies: "Well I can can stand up on the subway and criticize and say anything about the US president here too, no one would care about it!"
You must have missed the summer of love that we had two years ago, when crowds of protesters were regularly beaten and gassed, and often arrested (Charges would, of course, get dropped, because it's not actually illegal to protest.)
But you are correct, it's possible to protest the British monarchy as much as you want in the US, with next to consequences. :)
Pretending that a country which regularly arrests people for saying mean things on twitter is somehow more civilized than the US is both brain dead and extremely dangerous.
The UK is a medieval hell hole whose sole redeeming feature is that it's contained by the Atlantic ocean.
Least we forget a main part of the protest are against a pedophile who probably ordered the murder of Epstein.
Maybe what this says is that you're not paying attention, maybe it says you belong to a group who US police are less likely to target for arrest. Or maybe you'd just end up dead in a ditch instead of arrested, which doesn't seem better than getting arrested.
Bad taste isn't grounds for arrest in the UK either. In the unlikely event any of these people end up actually in court, they'll be charged with something else, in most cases it seems like public order offences. The same sort of charge you'd get if the cops arrest you drunk outside a bar yelling abuse at people and they decide you won't just sober up and go home with a caution.
Here's what the ACLU were able to have released from the White House (in the Bush era) about what the Secret Service do to prepare before a presidential visit:
"As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site"
It doesn't say they get arrested, but of course if you're not free to go about your business, then does it really matter whether you were "arrested" or not ?
When later answering questions on a security clearance SF-86 application or other background check “have you been arrested in the last seven years?” would be one way in which it could matter.
> For this section report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
> 22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges,
convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
> - Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?
For this section report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
- In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
- In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
- In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges,
convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
- In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
- Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?
You can do that in the UK too, just not during a funeral procession.
The US has laws against protesting at the funerals of Armed Service members. If you really want to rage against something, why not the thing from your own society, instead of the thing from some other society?
Citation? I've never heard this before. I'm aware of the westboro baptist protesting at funerals of gay people or other "sinners" they don't like; they're wholly awful people. I didn't realize it was illegal to protest at a servicemember's funeral, though. Does this come out of the Vietnam war?
> You can do that in the UK too, just not during a funeral procession.
Can you though? I seem to remember someone getting arrested for tweeting some joke about a UK war hero because the joke was in poor taste or something.
But you can be arrested for crossing the street in the wrong place, and you can be shot by the police for any reason, including because they feel like it.
To be fair the British cops sometimes shoot black people for dubious reasons too. It's taken a bit more seriously here (there will automatically be an investigation if anybody dies after police contact not only the extremes of "a cop shot them" or "he apparently committed suicide while in police custody" but even something like "Police called for a welfare check, decided everything was fine, but an hour later her boyfriend strangled her to death") - but it does happen which isn't great, and it is more notable since the vast majority of British cops don't have guns, so this means they specifically brought in armed police.
I tried to post "fewer times in 20 years here than in one hour in the US", but apparently I was posting too fast, because apparently HN doesn't like people to have conversations.
When a govt allows itself to be professionally lobbied, and those lobbiest are well know by political science profs to have "more say in policy decisions than the voters", do you think such a govt can ever be truly democratic?
At what point "democracy: becomes a facade, an empty ritual?
(And sadly, more an more a justification to go at war)
I wouldn't be so sure. The US has the concept of "Free speech zone" exactly for this situation. Designate a zone away from the event where all the protestors have to go and arrest those that don't. Seems even more draconian than what the UK is doing right now.
> For all its faults, I love the US. I can go downtown with a sign that says "Not my president", and I may get some cheers, may get some boos. What I won't get is arrested.
The situation is not that cut and clear.
I had a joke hat that looked like a MAGA hat (red with white text). I never wore it out of the house because at the time I took public transit everywhere and I didn't want to wind up wearing somebody's coffee or be assaulted (sure it probably would have taken awhile but still, not worth the risk). Were that to happen I can just about guarantee the crime would be pursued by the police about as vigorously as a petty theft report. The government probably would have left me alone but how much is that worth when other people will do their dirty work for them?
In order to get towards that goal, Charles III should up the ante and use his reserve powers to dissolve parliament. Would make for a good show to see what the reaction would be.
They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though.
They are being arrested for being rude about it.
Was the fella on radio 4 who stated to the entire nation that ‘King Charles and his family should be put in a council house and that the Monarchy should be abolished’ arrested? No.
If you are going to attend a funeral, any funeral, be it the Queen’s or anyone else’s and hurl abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested.
There were arrests in which the arrestee has been unarrested, when the police made a mistake. Like the fella who stated that ‘we didn’t vote for him’ when King Charles was pronounced King.
You can, quite legally, protest the Monarchy. Being a dick about it and trying to upset people mourning will however be considered a breach of the peace or some other public order offence.
Are you referring to Synder v Phelps where the Supreme Court held that a distant (1000 ft away) protest didn't qualify for monetary (tort) damages for the deceased's family?
Because that case doesn't strike down the state laws preventing protests in close proximity. It just ruled that the private citizen can't get lots of money for emotional distress caused by a protest.
But this is a case in the UK. They have different laws and observe different decorum.
Even in the US I would think protesting a funeral to be in extremely poor taste, no matter the target. What’s that Latin phrase about the recently dead?
Yeah but the UK is where you can get arrested for making your girlfriend's pug do a Nazi salute as a joke (but somehow Father Ted doing similar Nazi jokes gets a pass)
Wait, what? Pretty sure dogs don't have the anatomical capability to do a nazi salute. At best they can just lift a leg up, but is that really a nazi salute?
Citation needed but I suspect you are probably right about the pug.
Father Ted is Irish as in Republic of Ireland as in not UKoGB - we share a very, very strange border. Having said that, Father Ted was turned down by RTE for being too Irish and was eventually financed by the BBC! Thankfully it eventually aired because it is absolutely belting.
Everything about your second paragraph is incorrect. Father Ted was never pitched to RTE. The creators had a prior working relationship with Channel 4 so it was pitched to them, not the BBC. It was produced by Hat Trick Productions, a UK based television production company who also make Have I Got News For You. All indoor scenes were filmed in London with outdoor scenes being filmed in different parts of Ireland.
I mean, the WBC is a well known agitator and not representative of people or even protestors at large. In any case, I contend it's in extremely poor taste and does not help further the cause, and actively creates antipathy.
Sure, but talking about the effectiveness of the protest tactic is totally different than whether or not the state should arrest and imprison you for protesting that way.
Other than maths and physics, there is no natural law that says this and that are so and right. People make the laws amd they are not Americans and don't observe our laws. ASBOs were repealed in England but not Scotland; in England they were replaced by new laws (targeting economically disruptive protests, I guess).
The article describes an activist who specifically took pains to avoid any disparagement of the outgoing Queen, limiting his protest to the incoming coronation.
If that falls under the rule you're describing, doesn't that render it impossible to protest a ceremony, as long as it happens after a funeral? It seems you're defining away the protest of hereditary succession as unacceptably rude?
> limiting his protest to the incoming coronation.
The coronation is months away, he was protesting the ascension at the Queen's funeral procession. That does not avoid disparagement of the Queen.
I certainly don't think he should be arrested but he's clearly boneheaded. He'll have plenty of time to protest both the ascension and the coronation, of someone who is a much softer target that the Queen, especially considering she's just died.
PR own goal if ever there was one. Even Extinction Rebellion have had the good sense to postpone their demos. Is there anyone but the Western Baptist Church who thinks it's a good idea to protest at funerals?
They say if you support free speech you'll end up defending vile people, and it's true, he shouldn't be arrested, he should be allowed to say what he said, but he is vile and it was stupid.
Because, for whatever reason, I read the article then promptly dumped the information about his arrest in Oxford and conflated it with the arrests at the funeral procession on the way to St. Giles' Cathedral.
Which means it was still not a coronation, it also wasn't a funeral procession, I still think he's boneheaded but not as much as before or nearly as much as the ones in Edinburgh, and none of them should've been arrested (maybe perhaps the one that shouted at Prince Andrew, but definitely not the others).
This is a very clear distinction in the UK. There are a number of constraints on someone's rights to make loud noises in the UK, of which probably Section 5(1) of the 1986 Public Order Act is most often used -- it states
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
(a) uses threatening (or abusive) words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening (or abusive)"
with all of the usual lawyerly finness about what (b) means being defined by common law precedent and the right to freedom of expression largely being worked out by the courts together with reference to the ECHR. Note that things like animal rights protestors making loud noises at university graduations (where the graduates have nothing to do with animal experiments) have successfully been challenged under this statute – the usual remedy is a high court injunction relocating them to somewhere visible and nearby, but out of earshot, of the thing they are protesting against.
It is worth noting that a long-running tradition in the UK is that if a policeman disagrees with a piece of legislation and the opportunity arises to challenge it favourably in court, he arrests somebody under the legislation in question in what may be favourable but reasonable circumstances (favourable to the defendant) in order to circumscribe the limitations of the act in question. As a consequence, in many ways, I therefore think that this may also be a challenge by police officers to the validity of the conservative government's latest legislation that aims to ban "disruptive" protests, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was largely modified to deal with the (IMO effective) protests of the Insulate Britain campaign who recently brought major motorways to a crawl. It is a deeply divisive and very authoritarian bill, and would cover this situation. Specifically, it provides that:
"[...] police forces are allowed to place restrictions on protests they believe would otherwise constitute an existing offence of public nuisance, including imposing starting and finishing times and noise limits, and be able to consider actions by one individual as protests under provisions of the Act. Protestors disobeying such instructions from the police may be committing a criminal offence."
In my opinion, this has already been used to stifle what I find to be legitimate protest – "on 28 June 2022, the day the act came into force, anti-Brexit activist Steve Bray had his amplification equipment seized by police under the 2011 Police Reform Social Responsibility Act. The 2022 act extends the area around the House of Commons in which protest is restricted under the 2011 act." [1].
As recognised by the police, positing the possibility of transitioning to a republic (from a constitutional monarchy) is almost certainly a clear-cut case of a legitimate piece of protest, and so if someone _did_ protest accordingly _without_ being rude and disruptive I think this would be a perfect opportunity for the courts to throw out the charge.
Edit: Further bits of fun law – "public nuisance" is both a tort and a very old legal concept, recommended effectively for removal and updating from the criminal statutes by the Law Commission in 2015 [2]. It is described quite formally in many words (c.f. [2]) but more usefully defined by the fact that it
typically consists either of an environmental nuisance, such as carrying on
works producing excessive noise or smells, or of offensive or dangerous behaviour
in public, such as noisy parties and hanging from bridges.
It also includes obstructing the public highway, though now this is also a statutory offence.
Public nuisance therefore is a much lower bar to offence than either the public order act or breach of the peace would be; and unlike those acts there is no requirement for a <...
Why does everything have to be so extremist with the US? Everything taken to the absolute maximum imaginable?
Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL costs) without any consideration as to what that does to your society.
You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime.
Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat.
Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech.
You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
Eh, it's an ugly truth and my examples could have been less extreme.
Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1].
For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion:
> a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.”
as another example, US lets you bring guns to protests, i am 100% on board with how my government (canada) arrests any idiots who show up with a firearm to a protest.
I generally like the right to protest, but i dont want 100% free for all.
When you have counterprotestors/rioters throwing bricks/molotovs/etc. with the tacit consent of the local government, going to a protest armed can be the only way to safely exercise your constitutional right to protest.
What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
The fact that all state power eventually comes down to men with guns.
>What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest.
You either get out of there or you shoot back, that's really not a hard question. And to your second question yes, especially if the other side is shooting or threatening to shoot. Safer if you have guns as well than only they have guns. And just look at Kyle Rittenhouse, he would have been dead if he hadn't been armed. The third person he shot straight up said that he would have shot Kyle if Kyle hadn't vaporized his bicep first.
>For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
Once again it makes you safer, because they can't risk throwing molotovs at you from out in the open. Your being armed helps you control when and from where they could possibly attack you with molotovs or whatever.
I think you're just seeing an example of the raging inferiority complex that many members of the rest of the West exhibit towards the US. There's a noticeable cultural difference along certain axes, with both significant downsides and significant upsides for both sides of the cultural divide. But there are many out there who aren't cognitively capable of processing the breathtaking nuance of global cultural differences, and unsurprisingly they end up with a reductive view of the culture they don't understand (same as it ever was).
My personal experience of backpacking around the world was replete with lectures from 25-year-old European women about the US's issues. They were of such poor quality that I mostly just smiled and shrugged it off, knowing that it'd be a waste of my vacation to try and explain to them the nuances of cultural difference. But I had the delightful catharsis of schooling a particularly-obnoxious British girl on her country's role as the primary contender for history's greatest supervillain (unsurprisingly, her grasp of history and politics was.... poor).
See the dozens of voting restrictions which were passed in various states over the last two years. See the 200 year old compromise with slave holder states which is still in effect to this day. See the consistent disenfranchisement efforts over the last decade led by a particular major political party. See any and all voter rights laws being stymied by that same party.
Well to start, right now there is 24/7 news coverage about how an ex-president took state documents with him on his way out. Seperation of office from officeholder is a pretty key part of a functioning democracy (hell even the british monarchy can do that one).
Or how about how everyone knows the political affiliations of supreme court judges? In a normal country judges are apolitical.
First past the post is inherently undemocratic. Combine with the facts that Senate representation is based on lines on a map and not population, and House of Representatives representation is based on population numbers from a century ago, there's blatant gerrymandering to abuse the first past the post. Did you also miss the former president attempting a coup, getting away with multiple crimes while in office due to political affiliation? Or how about the fact that your supreme court wields enormous power and is blatantly political, with life appointments.
There's a bunch of reasons why the US is considered a flawed democracy, with the score going down every year, in the Democracy Index.
I don't - my father's funeral is literally two weeks away. Some relatives that my mother doesn't get along with at all aren't invited - they've never been particularly close and it'll be healthier for everyone if they don't stir shit in a time of healing.
This isn't a case of protestors being repeatedly ignored - the public discussion about the monarchy is unfolding in most media outlets right now and other forms of protest are still quite available.
Sorry about your father. I don't like using personal examples since emotions can be strong, especially at a time like this. If they were to show up and stand peacefully with a sign, I don't think that should be illegal. But if they did that it would certainly show the rest of the family what kinds of people they are.
I mean - whenever we're talking about funerals it's an extremely personal event for some. Just because you can't see the person - or it's a person of privilege - doesn't mean it doesn't hit just as hard.
Additionally, while I think this is extremely unhealthy mentally, there was a not insignificant proportion of Britain that felt they had a personal relationship with the queen even if they never met her for tea.
Protesting a public funeral procession for a public figure down closed-off public roads makes that more defensible, from my Australian perspective. Otherwise you have a bizarre situation where you can hold a 100-mile-long walking-speed parade for whatever cause you support, provided you can find a suitable dead person and convince the police to block off the roads, and all your opponents have to shut their mouths and put up with it.
In Oxford someone was arrested for shouting "who elected him" during the proclamation of the new king so it's not just about respecting a funeral (which is understable) or unacceptable language.
But in fairness to the police there seems to be a mass fervour at the moment and they may actually be doing the hecklers a service by taking them away for their own safety...
Why do you arrest someone just to de-arrest them minutes later once there are away? I think this rather proves the point that the police knew that person was not actually committing an offence but wanted to take them away.
This is the point. 'Fear or provocation of violence' is an offence since it precipitates violence, its a provocation that 'might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control', which would be quite dreadful!
>"You will be arrested for hurling obscenities at mourners regardless of who the dead person is."
The word hurling in the context of insults or obscenities means vocalizing them in a very audible fashion. The article states that the woman at St Giles was not audibly protesting but rather holding a sign. Given that she was quietly expressing her opinion, tasteful or not, it seems she could have been quietly removed without being arrested.
>"In widely seen photos, a woman holding a sign reading "Abolish monarchy" and "F*** imperialism" was arrested on Sunday at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh, where the queen's body is to lie at rest until Tuesday.
Further the object of their protest was the institution and neither the mourners or the deceased.
The other two people mentioned in the article who were vocal, were outside on public streets and not in a Church. The article states they were near parade barricades. Again the object of their protest was the institution and it was being done on public streets. Surely you are allowed to express your discontent about an institution on a public street. That's not rocket science.
>"And in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall."
Again we have a woman who was holding up a sign on a public street "near Westminster Hall."
You will also be arrested for shouting "who elected him" at the new King's proclamation ceremony apparently.
These tired strawmen need to stop. Anti-royalists are being arrested for expressing anti-royal views in inconvenient places, not "hurling obscenities at a funeral".
Let's just say that the hecklers have been arrested much, much faster (pretty much instantly, apparently) than the "eco-activists" who recently blocked roads, petrol stations, even motorways...
It's only by convention that Parliament doesn't chop the King's head off. I would imagine that convention will last approximately the same amount of time.
> In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes.
This happens less so now that large numbers of bikers show up each time they try and stand directly in front of them, holding large flags to block their signs.
I think we're reaching some insane point in this discussion when a funeral of one of the most well known people in the world, where leaders of literally every major superpower are coming over to pay their respects is called an extravaganza.
Considering they've failed to take Ukraine I'm not Russia gets to keep it's "Superpower" status anymore. Even if they eventually managed it in the following weeks/months/years, that's still just pathetic. I'm not saying I wanted Russia to invade or beat Ukraine, I think the war was beyond stupid and unnecessary but it sure has made Russia look weak and dumb. Not the kind of thing that "projects power on a global scale."
Since about half the country seem to want to show up, it seems reasonable and proportionate. I wouldn't have a problem with some celebrity's funeral being a huge affair either, even if I didn't care for that celebrity myself.
In case I'm misunderstood, I don't feel strongly either way about the British royalty, but I'm OK with allowing a significant proportion of the population being left alone to get on with what ceremony they want to do, given that they want to do it.
Yes. Absolutely. Assuming it's being held in public and, especially, if it's a state figure.
Even more so if the public is the one paying for the funeral in the first place. You're definitely allowed to be rude at a funeral you're footing the bill for.
It's not "someone you don't like". It's a queen. A public figure. Her funeral is a symbol, a public moment, of course dissent should be allowed at this exact moment. They're sending a public message, why is it forbidden to send a dissenting voice? This is propaganda without the right to retort with counter-propaganda.
I think it's fair to make certain events, like funerals, off-limits to protest.
Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service.
> Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service.
For trespassing. This example has nothing to do with speech.
It has the same amount as the thing this article is about, which makes it a good comparison (the article also has nothing to do with the content of the speech)
The article definitely has to do with the content of the speech:
> Similar reports emerged Monday, including one case involving a man who was seen being forcibly removed from a parade barrier after shouting at the royal procession leading to the cathedral. He was reportedly heckling Prince Andrew.
This comparison just has nothing to do with speech at all. It’s categorically different. You’d get arrested for breaking into the Oval Office even if you remained silent the whole time.
They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that.
> They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that.
And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer taste. But the movie producers have money.
That's like complaining that you will get arrested for having sex in the middle of the street, but sex in a film is somehow fine(surely it's because movie producers have money and are in cahoots with the government, and not for any other, more logical reason, like the fact that art forms, no matter how poor in taste, are protected by society).
In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" argument than the movie production? Did the latter get a permit for Nazi jokes? (Sincere question, maybe they did: UK speech norms and laws are incredibly alien to me)
In terms of legal sense, since you asked about that specifically - all films shown in the UK(in theatres or released on home media, or for streaming/download) have to be approved by the British Film Commission. If something is approved for release, anyone would have an extremely hard time getting the author arrested for the content - they can still be sued for a number of different reasons, but making a nazi salute in a film with nazis would be allowed for artistic purposes.
A random guy making a nazi salute for a joke and uploading it on youtube is more like documentary evidence of a crime, not an art form. There is a reason promoting nazi salutes is a crime in most of Europe, and it really doesn't matter he did it as a joke - it's simply not a laughing matter. Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me, given the attrocities comitted by Nazis against our people - I think doing a nazi salute publicly(and I count uploading videos on youtube as "public"), even as a joke, is not acceptable at all.
> Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me
Sure, this is a difference in norms (and law) that I'm intentionally taking for granted, and trying to further understand. If equally-applied, it's a little more comprehensible to me (eg Germany requiring massive game studios to censor Nazi symbolism in WW2 games).
But I have a much stronger revulsion reaction to the idea that the govt should be in the business of deciding whose expression is "actually" art, and inconsistently allowing well-connected creators latitude that nobodies aren't privy to. I don't doubt that there are many people find the Nazi pug funnier than the Father Ted joke (and vice versa); the idea that the latter is uniquely acceptable because a _British govt agency_ decided it was funny is astonishing to me.
The mindset is alien to me. The idea that a person should be locked up for making a joke, but a corporation should have the right to do whatever it likes. It doesn't even seem like it's ever in question just stated like a fact that the wealthy and powerful should have more rights. Perhaps that's the British psyche of meek subservience to the ruling class.
The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist", while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so. I mean it would be funny if it wasn't terrifying and Orwellian.
>>The idea that a person should be locked up for making a joke, but a corporation should have the right to do whatever it likes.
I don't think anyone has this kind of mindset - at least I certainly don't. Anyone should be arrested for joking with nazi salutes, no matter if they are rich or poor. Not sure why you think that corporations get away with it - is there any corporation out there that uploads "joke" nazi salutes to youtube and gets away with it? If you mean films specifically, then films get approval of the British Film Comission which judges anything submited based on artistic merit. We can disagree with its rulings, but it's not like a corporation has "the right to do whatever it likes" as you put it. Quite the opposite in fact.
>>The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist"
I don't find this funny at all, glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter.
>>while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so
You mean....the police?
I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies. The horrors of WW2 are still too fresh and the pain too great to allow it - we have made these laws to make sure that nazis don't come back, and anything associated with them is banned. You might think "well what sort of harm does a single youtube video do, the guy was clearly joking". And yeah, it's obvious to you and me - but to some, that will be a "funny" thing to repeat. After all, they are only joking, they don't mean it really, it's fine, right? No, it's not, and unfortunately it has to be stomped out as early as possible. Again, I understand that this might sound alien especially to American readers, but I don't have anything else to say on that matter, other that it feels like the right thing to do, given the topic.
Oh I think they do. They won't admit it when you put it like that of course, many probably don't even admit it to themselves because they simultaneously see themselves also as resistance fighters raging against powerful established interests, on behalf of the oppressed.
> I don't find this funny at all,
I wasn't talking about the content of the joke. I think nazi jokes can be pretty hilarious though, especially the ones where they do mock salutes. Perhaps you just have to appreciate a bit of good old British humor to feel that way, though.
> glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter.
I believe you probably genuinely think a pug doing a salute is glorifying nazis, that nobody else could reasonably disagree, and that society needs to be protected from this and stamping it out by locking up commoners who dare to defy the state edicts.
> You mean....the police?
The police, the prosecutors, the judges, the legislators. Sure.
> I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies.
At least when it comes to the UK, I don't think so. The British are known for doing comedies of the war and nazis almost from the start. They have had a very long tradition of joking about nazis including mocking their salutes, as well as giving their rich and ruling class a double standard about it.
>>I believe you probably genuinely think a pug doing a salute is glorifying nazis, that nobody else could reasonably disagree, and that society needs to be protected from this and stamping it out by locking up commoners who dare to defy the state edicts.
I think the society needs to be protected from trivialization of Nazi gestures and symbology, not from pugs on youtube specifically. I know you are trying to reduce it to absolute absurdity so my argument can be easily dismissed, but I'm sure you can also see how it wouldn't be appropriate to have a short Tik Tok video of someone making a Nazi salute and then saying "it's just a joke, everyone relax". No one got hurt, they only did it for the views, but it still wouldn't be ok - not because we want to live in a society of oppresion and censorship, but because using a nazi salute as a joke in itself without any context(context like in all the examples you posted) is poor taste at best. Can we at least agree on that?
>> it's revisionist to say that satirizing nazis including and mocking their salutes was some big offensive taboo.
I also live in the UK, and I think we are arguing about two separate things.
One is mocking nazis in art and media - there you are absolutely correct, there is a history there and it is generally allowed.
What I'm pointing out is that I don't believe European societies accept Nazi salutes as jokes pretty much anywhere outside of art/comedy/standup context. Go to a party in the UK and start marching with your hand raised up straight, if anyone complains say "it's a joke bro" - see how fast you get kicked out. My bet is very very very fast.
That's my entire feeling about this - that a random short YT clip of nazi salutes is the equivalent of that "it's a joke bro" mentality. It's not allowed not because we love oppression, it's not allowed because it trivializes something that has left such deep scars on our societies.
> think the society needs to be protected from trivialization of Nazi gestures and symbology, not from pugs on youtube specifically. I know you are trying to reduce it to absolute absurdity so my argument can be easily dismissed, but I'm sure you can also see how it wouldn't be appropriate to have a short Tik Tok video of someone making a Nazi salute and then saying "it's just a joke, everyone relax". No one got hurt, they only did it for the views, but it still wouldn't be ok - not because we want to live in a society of oppresion and censorship, but because using a nazi salute as a joke in itself without any context(context like in all the examples you posted) is poor taste at best. Can we at least agree on that?
No, I don't agree with anything you said in that paragraph. As I said, the mindset is alien to me. My attitude is not one of subservience to the government and I don't look to the ruling class as my savior, protector, my better, wiser, or even inherently good.
And taste is entirely on the tongue of the beholder.
> I also live in the UK, and I think we are arguing about two separate things.
I don't think so. You said "making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies", which is wrong as I provided evidence for. nazi salutes as a joke is in fact acceptable even in Germany -- at least when it is the rich and powerful doing it. If you are revising your position now, don't paint it like we were just arguing past one another.
> What I'm pointing out is that I don't believe European societies accept Nazi salutes as jokes pretty much anywhere outside of art/comedy/standup context.
What you are also pointing out is that you believe it's okay for rich and powerful people and corporations to make said jokes and anoint themselves "deciders" about who may make jokes and who should be punished for making jokes.
Teaching a pug to do nazi salutes is a joke. Really. Handwringing about the raw horrors of the war or the threat of the reich rising again if this is allowed just isn't credible. It's the same fearmongering and denouncements and threats that the powerful have always used to silence the people and justify their oppression.
The nazis did not rise because Germans were permitted to make tasteless jokes. They rose because Germans were able to be convinced that their fellow citizens posed a grave threat to them, and that they needed the government to protect them and save their society by oppressing this menace.
You really think that I believe a common person should be arrested for something, yet the same thing should be allowed for a corporation? Where have I justified that?????
Screeching profanities at a funeral march should be a minor crime. ...but perhaps more importantly, you should just be ashamed of your childish behaviour.
And yet nowhere in the article was it mentioned that someone was "screeching profanities." There were people who were holding signs and there were people that expressed their opinions without profanity during the ascension ceremonies. In fact the only screeching of any referenced in the article was Twitter post with a video where people are screeching "God Save the King."
Even if you think that should be a crime, why should that apply to the funeral of a representative or government official? People should be able to show their distaste of such a public figure however they want, even if it makes you feel weird about it.
I was absolutely in favor of opposing funeral protests when they were happening in America[1]. Freedom to protest doesn't mean the freedom to abuse people when they're in an emotionally fragile state. I think it's perfectly fair to have a discussion about the validity of the monarchy moving forward - and I think it's also perfectly fair to let those folks who had some emotional connection (whether reciprocated or single-directional) attend a funeral to remember the queen in peace.
> The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.
I mean yes? Elect MPs, vote for parties that support the republic movement for a starter. It doesn't really help when all the mainstream parties in the Westminster are royalists.
I would guess Parliamentarians are likely to have read up a bit and discovered why Parliament is sovereign. The English literally tried not having a monarch, they executed Charles I for treason. This concretely answers any residual question, the Parliament can execute the King, so Parliament is sovereign. Turns out the alternative wasn't better. "Lord Protector" Cromwell (ie a dictator) wasn't an improvement over a King. After Cromwell died, the restored Parliament invited Charles II to become King.
People want a figurehead. If you elect the figurehead they have political power (because of democratic legitimacy) and that's bad. Monarchy is better for this purpose.
The USA is the one where they give their elected figurehead pardon powers - like a King in the old times - and the previous one used them to insulate friends who very obviously did crimes. Then in fact he promises to do the same again only more so if given the chance, but his political allies protect him from prosecution anyway. Wow. I mean, I guess Cromwell was worse, but it's not exactly an enviable choice.
The US governance model is unsound, it's been around for only a relatively brief period and it's crumbling. France's setup is better, but if there had been some way to not execute the King of France I think they'd be doing just fine with some guy in a fancy hat living in one of their palaces and somebody to represent France as an idea who isn't connected to a political executive.
> France's setup is better, but if there had been some way to not execute the King of France I think they'd be doing just fine with some guy in a fancy hat living in one of their palaces and somebody to represent France as an idea who isn't connected to a political executive.
France deposed its last two kings and its last emperor without executing them so I think we can safely assume than no actually no one wants a king there.
That would be a wrong assumption. After the Second Empire fell, a return to the Bourbon monarchy was considered the way forward. The problem was that the idiot next in line was too inflexible with regards to flag designs, so the Third Republic was set up with a largely ceremonial president with an extremely long term (7 years), with the hope that when that term is up, the idiot would have died, and the next in line would be the liberal Phillipe d'Orléans, compte de Paris. But by the time the term was up, the composition of parliament and the general attitude had changed, so the shaky, unstable, supposedly temporary Third Republic survived.
Henri, compte de Chambord (the inflexible idiot, proud descendant of a line of either inflexible or too flexible idiots), is thus considered as the French Washington - without him the Republic wouldn't have been possible.
> That would be a wrong assumption. After the Second Empire fell, a return to the Bourbon monarchy was considered the way forward. The problem was that the idiot next in line was too inflexible with regards to flag designs, so the Third Republic was set up with a largely ceremonial president with an extremely long term (7 years)
No, that’s only Tiers and the other idiots of the French right who had already dishonoured France during the the semaine sanglante and was only elected by the part of France which wasn’t occupied by Prussia. The left was republican but the commune had temporary weakened it. There was no way a return to monarchy would have hold. The population wasn’t really in favour of it which is why the third kept going.
Their disagreement amongst the right went much further than the flag anyway. No one agreed about who should rule and under which constitution.
It is hard to say if the US form of government is really less stable than any other democracy -- since the US has been around, many countries have undergone wild changes to the structure of their governments. The US system has changed as well, it is an ever-evolving process.
Not sure the US is crumbling, there are some alarming elements but then we've always had our fair share of dummies over here. Somehow we've stumbled our way into a pretty powerful position, but of course as the UK can attest, global power can evaporate quite quickly. Hypothetically, if we undergo a Rome style transition from representative government to empire, does that count as stable?
Last I checked that was a few hundred years ago and there are plenty of parliamentary goverments in complete control and perfectly semi-functional like most modern nations. I'm not sure how Cromwell can be brought up as legitimate example in 2022 when royalty has no real power to speak of.
No nor can you dissolve the cia, close down US prisons operating in Cuba or get the truth about ufos. Nor can you vote for whoever you want to run the country you are given two choices.
> in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall.
If you count that as rude, you're essentially counting any dissent as rude, no?
Edit: there's an even better example, of a man who was nowhere near any funerary rites, calling out "who elected him" at the proclamation of Charles' ascension.
Or, more precisely, he was going around with this blank sign, asking officers whether he would be arrested if he were to write that on the blank paper, according to the account here:
As a person from Northern Ireland, I'm not sure what holiday you're referring to.
Closest I can think of is the 12th July, which is a holiday, but not one celebrating burning Catholics[0]. You might be referring to the bonfires that are lit on the 11th, but that's not a holiday.
Aside from some small events in Scotland, the 12th July is not celebrated in the rest of the UK.
Is Guy Fawkes Day in November not a big thing in NI? It is in England, at least. Although the traditional burning of the effigy of Catholic dissident/terrorist Guy Fawkes is becoming less common and people just are more commonly just treating it as a general holiday.
No, we don't observe it at all, in either community. Halloween is bigger here, and observed by both main communities, it's probably close enough to 5th November that we've just ended up forgetting about Guy Fawkes.
Plus it's taught in school as an English event, and we have enough of our own history going on in the early 1600s.
It was a terrible tragedy, but it’s patently absurd that we should give someone a jail sentence for making a joke about it.
(The jail sentence was suspended, but that’s hardly the point. Any criminal conviction, even a fine, carries the ultimate threat of jail, or, if you resist arrest, even death — all this, for a joke).
Are you sure you condone joking about the deaths of people in Grenfell Tower?
I've lived on these shores (South Somerset) for 52 years now and I have made the most awful jokes about some things as anyone probably has here. However, there is a point beyond which I won't go - causing deliberate hurt.
I don't know about the particular case that you refer to or actually skirt around - citation needed please.
A joke does not cause hurt beyond a slight nick with a possible small amount of blood loss. Beyond that it is not a joke and is an insult.
I don't condone the actions, but a jail sentence is utterly absurd and is, frankly, very unsettling. Why should insulting people be a jailable offense? There wouldn't be a stand up comedian left walking free if we consistently enforced this.
It's likely for "disturbing the peace" which is a little more cut-and-dry than rudeness. So many weird people on both sides of this event, though. I don't care about the queen but props to you if you do. Let's just not make it a thing more than it needs to be.
As an American, it is hard for me to properly grasp the fact that the UK almost seems closer to Saudi Arabia than the US in this regard.
It does not seem like having a "fuck imperialism" sign should ever get you arrested in a country that is supposedly one of the closest allies of the US.
> It does not seem like having a "fuck imperialism" sign should ever get you arrested in a country that is supposedly one of the closest allies of the US.
Okay, fair point – I missed the fact that SA is also currently a somewhat key US ally.
But you know what I mean, hopefully. The UK has typically been close enough socially and politically that the term "Special Relationship" has its own Wikipedia page [1].
The US had a revolution from King George III and created a Constitution with 10 Amendments in order to guard against this exact type of behaviour from the government. Discussion on the subject of the people's rights independent of their government isn't widely held today. Maybe that should change.
Yeah, nothing like being arrested _and sentenced to four years in prison_ for talking to a cop while being black, in the land of the free, where this would NEVER happen because of some often-invoked 1st amendment.
It was not my intention to say, for instance, that the US is not deeply racist; which is central to the case you quoted. It's likely far more so than the UK.
But the principle of freedom of speech seems generally more accepted, which is why Brittany Martin's case would be recognized by most Americans here for the racist outrage that it is. On the other hand, you have UK people elsewhere in the thread shrugging "yeah, that's a law" [1]), which is what was surprising to me.
But it very clearly is not. Quite the opposite is upheld by a court.
Of course, unless, by ‘principle’ you mean ‘only under certain conditions, sometimes, for some things to be said, by some people, to some specific set of people, YMMV’, in which case I fail to see the difference to the UK (or Saudi Arabia, for that matter). You also have that complete principle of freedom to praise the prince in SA.
I'm kinda puzzled. I know the US is wide and there's many pockets of everything, but in so many ways the US seems more religious and actively putting it into laws than the UK.
Digging far away, only the US tried to ban alcohol consumption, an angle only islamic countries are also interested in as far as I know. Looking back only a few weeks ago, abortion protection has been abolished nation wide. To only take super salient points.
The US banned alcohol because at the time we consumed an absolutely HUGE amount and it was causing all kinds of social ills like wife-beating and child neglect.
That's part of why the USA got created in the first place. Some people were discriminated against and/or locked in the Tower of London for inconveniencing the King or the establishment. Some of these people moved over and colonized the New World and achieved independence from the British Empire. That's also part of why the UK are your closest allies. Cultural heritage.
1. Not all of the arrests have been made at a "funeral"
2. It wasn't a funeral
3. If you're going to have a very public precession, parading a body through the streets with all the obedients lapping it up, surely you have to have a level of tolerance for dissenting voices? I imagine the disruption this event caused on Edinburgh was pretty large...
There's wall to wall coverage of this event happening worldwide right now, we need room for the dissenting voices too. Otherwise it's just outright sycophancy
It is because humans have an irrational tendency towards sycophancy. This was true throughout both the Obama and Trump administrations and before them.
Better to direct that impulse towards a dignified institution that does nothing but attract tourists and occasionally signal society’s values than towards something that tries to have efficient and lethal decision-making power.
We can’t just snap our fingers and fix the tendencies that make us human, nor do we have the energy to resist every diversion from your perception of what is ideal.
I don’t see how your view isn’t personally exhausting. And I don’t see what’s so bad about trying to channel our less productive qualities to better ends than letting them run wild and wishing they didn’t exist.
I'm not proscribing perfection. Rather asking why can't each generation try to do better? Ideally without giving up on gains made elsewhere.
And if we must channel some unavoidable desires then must it be to adore people who won life's lottery? (Or must we heap praise upon someone who appears to have done little to move the needle forward?)
If I try to see the millennial generation as a single decision-maker, I’d say it looks an awful lot like someone with multiple personalities.
Solving this problem requires solving coordination problems. Solving coordination problems requires creating a sense of community where people are motivated to act beyond their self interest. Collective motivation at that level requires symbolism and ceremony tapping into the deepest familial affections of the human heart.
The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
> Collective motivation at that level requires symbolism and ceremony tapping into the deepest familial affections of the human heart.
Citation needed.
> The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
Monarchs are born into unearned power, wealth, and privilege. They are the last people I'd consider successful at coordinating humanity for the better. Great Britain's own history is drenched in enough innocent blood. Whatever gains originated there appear largely attributable to luck and or non-royal endeavors.
Contradictory biblical logic to the rescue. Guess I shouldn't expect anyone to avoiding resisting any demons, don't want to multiply them sevenfold! Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
> Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
We've more or less gotten rid of royalty, and now we have celebrities shamelessly shilling just about anything - what an improvement! I would prefer neither, but I don't think that's ever going to happen without people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.
Surely you could have made your point without the unprovoked attack on Christianity?
I agree with you on the monarchy, and I'm an atheist as well, and I still can't help but read your comment as divisive and distracting from your earlier argument for a sarcastic barb at the bible.
You haven't even argued against the metaphor at all, you've only stated you think the bible is illogical. For what it's worth there are secular equivalents of this sort of risk analysis metaphor; the bird in the hand, a stitch in time, one today is worth two tomorrows, etc.
> surely you have to have a level of tolerance for dissenting voices?
To the procession or the monarchy? If you say the procession, sure. If you're talking about dissenting voices against the monarchy, I think that can be done without disrupting a memorial service.
I would say both; you can oppose the procession itself for all of its pomp and archaic tradition at a time where the country is dealing with a cost of living crisis and also have that also be more broadly a protest against the monarchy in general.
A large portion of the life of the royal family is public, even funded by the taxpayer, so to me it makes sense to allow for opposing viewpoints to be heard. Perhaps you can argue that a memorial service isn't the most appropriate time (though, I don't really subscribe to this viewpoint given just how much this memorial is rammed down our throats) to protest, I do think its where its likely to generate the most coverage. There is never going to be a more appropriate time to get people to listen
Edit: Just to clarify the point further - Not all of the arrests being discussed were made in Edinburgh (where the procession took place). Its debatable how much impact a person holding a blank sign in Oxford has on the events in Edinburgh (though I would wager its infinitesimally small). Equally, holding a sign with a swearword on it doesn't really "disrupt" in any meaningful sense either. A lot of people defend the police action on the grounds that it "may" have lead to violence via provocation and the person was arrested for "their own safety", but in that case why follow through with the charge? Rather than "de-arresting" (whatever that means) afterwards
That’s not how money works in the UK. The taxpayer isn’t funding the monarchy or anything else. If anything the Crown is funding the taxpayer via the Bank of England.
In the sense that the Crown leases the Crown Estate to Parliament in exchange for a guaranteed income? Sure.
In the sense that that arrangement could be reversed without massive upcry, a constitutional crisis, and the dissolution of the monarchy? Not realistically. The government has de facto control of the Estate, and the monarchy receives a de facto taxpayer-funded income (plus their private ownership through other property.)
Except the Royals themselves say something else. You linked to a webpage about how money gets created which isn't germane to the provenance of the already existing money that is owned by the royal family.
Take a look at "the official web site of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present." [1]
That website has a webpage devoted to the "Royal Finances" [2] that says, "There are three sources of funding for The Queen, or officials of the Royal Household acting on Her Majesty’s behalf, in both a public and private capacity. These are: the Sovereign Grant, the Privy Purse and The Queen’s personal wealth and income."
"The Sovereign Grant: This is the amount of money provided by Government to the Royal Household in support of The Queen’s official duties, including the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces: Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews, the residential and office areas of Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and the buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks."
The sovereign grant is 15% of the income from the Crown estates. Depending on who you think owns / should own the Crown estates (it was once the monarchs personal property) this is potentially a big subsidy to the tax payer from the monarch.
Ultimately the origins of most property is tied up in violence, not just that of the royal family.
> a cost of living crisis > funded by the taxpayer
To respond only to your financial arguments: there are different ways of looking at the costs and benefits of the UK royals.
Firstly, taxation:
“the monarchy cost the taxpayer £102.4m”. Last tax year HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) “collected £716.0 billion in taxes”[0].
Let’s assume the “cost of living crisis” affects 10 million people. £100 million given to them would mean an extra 10 quid per person per annum. A worthwhile difference, but hardly solving the problem. There’s way more pounds of flesh or fat to cut elsewhere in the budget.
Secondly: costs and waste are easy to see, but gains are often not seen. Does the UK earn more from the royals than the royals cost?
“[The royals] contributed an estimated $2.7 billion annually to the U.K. economy prepandemic. The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism, but Haigh notes there are other financial benefits, such as free media coverage of Britain (which was an estimated $400 million in 2017). There are also many valuable royal warrants granted by the monarch—essentially a stamp of approval on high-end consumer products like Barbour jackets and Johnnie Walker whisky. [snip] The economic advantages for companies and institutions in the royal family’s orbit far exceed the $550 million cost associated with the family’s massive operating expenses, according to Haigh.”[-1].
Of course, there are non-monetary costs and gains of the monarchy that are much harder to value.
Pure ownership in dollars “How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works”[-1³] can be compared against the wealth of other dynastic wealth families. It doesn’t make the top 10 in the world[π]. And probably not #1 in the UK[§] with the first royal family showing at #12 (although there are non-$ benefits such as status of being royalty, and non-$ costs/risks).
Even in New Zealand we are all paying a few dollars a year for costs related to the monarchy[1].
Fair & valid points overall. I did hesitate to put the comment about the taxpayer bearing some of the burden for funding the monarchy because I realised I would quickly be out of my depth when someone with more insight into the numbers came along :D
But the reason I did so was to underline the point that the public have a right to attend, whatever their point of view, since its likely that a % of the cost for the proceedings will fall on the taxpayer
I merely did some googling because I was sceptical! Disclaimer: I am not a royal apologist: born and live in the “colonies”, and I am not a fan of the remaining encumbrances that New Zealand has with any royalty.
> I think that can be done without disrupting a memorial service
This point is being made all over the thread and seems disingenuous. The extremely public memorial service for the reigning monarch is a deeply political event. If this was some private service being protested, even if it was the royal family, the point would stand. But this is not that. Not only is the transfer of power to the heir at the moment of death a huge part of the monarchy by design, the memorial service itself is used to affirm that same system in an extremely public and official way. If people can't protest that because it's a "memorial service" then when can they protest the monarchy? I'm sure protesting it when the queen was ill would also be in poor taste. And apparently protesting the new king right now as he is being declared king is also not possible. What's left?
I do some sales into a long cycle (annual and multi-year) with institutional customers. It can be hard to find the right timing to make contact. “Too early” and “too late” often overlap.
If they want to avoid making a change, they use this to put us off. The objections seem so plausible. But I’ve learned to use it to gauge when they have no intention of ever listening to us.
I live in Edinburgh. Can confirm major disruption and likely costs based on the sheer number of police and event staff I've seen just walking through town.
>Can confirm major disruption and likely costs based on the sheer number of police and event staff I've seen just walking through town.
To be fair, when you consider that the Queen lived for 96 years and there hasn't been an event like this since 1953, the cost spread out over that much time really isn't that much.
>"To be fair, when you consider that the Queen lived for 96 years and there hasn't been an event like this since 1953"
Did you miss the whole Platinum Jubilee celebration two months ago for the Queen? [1] The scope of that was also over the top and costs 10's of millions of pounds. There was also the Saphire Jubilee 5 years ago, the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the Golden Jubilee in 2002, there's at least a few others as well.
What are the Crown Estate assets worth? How many billions? And the public are not only expected to foot the bill for this over the top pageantry but they are supposed to do so with unwavering fealty? And at a time when the average person is worried about skyrocketing inflation and energy costs?
Based on revenue from the crown holdings, since the sovereign grant only represents a small percentage of overall revenues, much of the "public paid" money is paid back by that surplus being made available for public spending.
"In exchange for this public support, The Queen surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the last ten years, the revenue paid to the Exchequer is £3 billion for public spending."
Basically by allowing the monarchy a fund to be used to carry out their public (and private) duties, the surplus of royal holdings revenue goes into public spending. I don't know the exact numbers but the situation is a LOT more complex than "the taxpayer pays for the monarchs, reeee".
Well not really and that article clearly shows that is only really in part taxpayer funded.
The RF owns the Crown Estate. Of this estate the UK government sits on/uses part of that estate. Therefore they're essentially paying "rent" for what they're using.
However it used to be that the RF received all of the income from the Crown Estate. The SG was an agreement that they would forgo taking all of the income and only a portion of it; the rest goes to public spending.
Hell, they even had to invoke a provision to make up the amount should it fall: "A decrease in the Crown Estate's rental income during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the first use of the provision that prevents the value of the Sovereign Grant from falling, with the Treasury committing to make up the shortfall.".
It's a weird system for sure. The treasury pays out rent for all Royal Holdings that are being used by the goverment/public. Then 15%~ of that rent (plus income from other parts of the holdings) is available to the RF as a part of the SG. The rest goes back to the public.
There is a valid point made that security isn't included in these costs/returns, though. But at the end of the day, it's because the RF owns huge swathes of land and businesses, etc that they are paid. Sure they could be stripped of them but that sets a precedent.
I'm not overly concerned by cost given how much the procession seems to matter to so many people. But I do think people should be allowed to protest if they wish given we tax payers are paying for it.
This isn't a private funeral. Hell it's not even a funeral, it's a procession and a tax payer funded public event as well. I can _maybe_ get asking the person with the "fuck imperialism" sign to not use a sign with "fuck" on it (Don't mind myself but I know plenty of old folk will) but there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone declaring "Not my King".
On the plus side we now have viral examples of how Tory policies have in fact stepped on freedom of speech, contrary to their claims.
I copied and pasted it because it articulated what I wanted to say but was crafted better than I could have said it. Likely I should have attributed it to the source (Reddit) but it was spur of the moment on a thread with 5 comments and 3 votes. Alas.
You're noticing that this is copy-pasta from somewhere else. It seems credible that there might be some bad actors like with the Coronavirus or the election. But maybe I struggle to imagine how people could be so incredibly actively loyal to a royal family.
I also don't understand the undying loyalty to the royal family either :) And I don't doubt that there are bad actors around, fanning the flames. But in this instance (and without really doing any further digging) I assumed I just came across a person who felt their comment was worthwhile enough to post in multiple places
What exactly is an "obedient"? Are you really deploying a disparaging tag on people who are mourning? That seems a bit crass to me.
"we need room for the dissenting voices too" - I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right.
I also find the sheer amount of coverage a bit overwhelming but in the end no one knows what is appropriate - it's not happened before like this - and let's face it, if you were running a TV channel or radio or whatever, you would probably err on the side of caution too unless you were decidedly commercially stupid!
No one really knows what is appropriate. A lot of the ceremonies are only now being televised.
I have to say that, whilst the sheer bulk of 'er Maj programmes is starting to feel a little excessive, I understand why. Some of them are pretty good too.
We will pop out of the other side of this event and the world will continue to turn but we must remember that a King and his bros and moes (sorry!) and their kids and grandkids and great-grandkids have lost a pretty decent human. As have we all.
They are an odd lot and they are our odd lot. If it helps, I understand that they are a net gain financially via tourism alone. Not sure how that is costed but I suspect it is probably true.
It's fine to imply you prefer a republic instead or perhaps something else but why not be positive about your preferred solution instead of sniping at the current situation.
> What exactly is an "obedient"? Are you really deploying a disparaging tag on people who are mourning? That seems a bit crass to me.
Yeah, its a crass term I will agree with you there. The public has come out in droves to support the royal family and respect the ongoing proceedings and a small number have vocally voiced their opposition to the situation and are being condemned for doing so. So, I used this charged term rather cheaply to paint with broad strokes the kind of person I imagine to lap up this unique moment.
> I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right.
Here I also agree with you that its nice to hear that C4 was airing voices of people with dissenting perspectives, but I don't necessarily think it should be confined to the TV or the internet as the "appropriate place" to air such views. I think going out and publicly protesting it is much more impactful
> What exactly do you want?
For people to realise that this isn't just a private occasion for immediate family to pay their respects to the recently departed. That the Royal family, for better or worse, has and continues to play a significant role in the ongoing story of this country and in having such a prominent and public position should be tolerant (even understanding?) of those who oppose, rather than to have it simply be quashed and scrubbed away
Thankfully we - you and I can have a reasoned discussion and someone with super powers is dispensing justice on the noddys that drip with hate and malice. There are quite a few greyed out comments in this thread!
I'm not too sure yet what on earth is going on here. It is unprecedented and I think the media are quite scarred by what happened when Diana died and the subsequent events. I remember those days quite well.
I think that we are still learning how to grieve as a nation. I lost my mum 25 odd years back (about a year after Diana passed away) and have buried quite a lot of family since and come to terms with some of the seamier sides of life. It is the way of things but I don't think that Britain, let alone any other country has worked out how to deal with death properly.
It sometimes looks quite bizarre but I think that the UK has the basics laid for a pretty good mechanism for dealing with grief. It will work itself out somehow.
That said, I understand that not everyone is a fan of the royals and would prefer a republic. For now, why not recognise a loss of a person who has been here for 90+ years and tomorrow we'll debate the future.
>We will pop out of the other side of this event and the world will continue to turn but we must remember that a King and his bros and moes (sorry!) and their kids and grandkids and great-grandkids have lost a pretty decent human. As have we all.
If that "pretty decent human" saw you were on fire, she wouldn't have deigned to put you out with her piss, and neither would any of her "odd lot." She wasn't your doddering, sweet old grandma, she was literally draped in blood-jewels stolen from two subjugated and enslaved continents.
Wait, is this a reasonable criteria for what makes someone a good person. I genuinely believe she’d stop and alert those around her better able to help to get a fire extinguisher or otherwise attend to the enflamed victim. What is your evidence for her callousness?
"That seems a bit crass to me." Not anymore crass than creating a cargo cult of monarchist sycophants, and expecting it to go on unopposed into the 22nd century for the sake of 'civility', particularly given the most recent decade of endless, hapless, idiocy and amoral gobshite.
Scotland in particular has a long running loathing of the monarchy, so any superheated response is not remotely surprising.
If the Scottish independence referendum was called for today, after Brexit, Boris Johnson and the Queen's passing away, it would probably have an entirelly different outcome.
No, he just partied during Prince Philip's funeral, while everyone else was either in lockdown or mourning. Maybe he's patrying now, just as the late Queen is touring England.
i see quite a few confusing or ill spirited comments so I suppose most of this thread is from a distinctly United States American perspective. Its worth kindly pointing out the UK has its own law and order, much of which applies to your character and conduct in the public sphere.
Conversely Whilst considered in egregiously poor taste, burlish crass and offensive protests are generally permitted in the USA provided they are performed on public property. a prime example is the Westboro Baptist Church, a cavalcade of questionably religious zealots who protest everything from LGBTQ funerals to the funerals of war veterans. They shout, scream, and generally send mourners into distress and misery for the duration of their service.
The queen was a public figure whose lavish livelihood were paid for by British tax-payers. So it seems to me that British people should have the right to celebrate her death in any way they please. Curtailing people's freedom of speech by misusing public order laws (the queen's funeral is not comparable to any normal funeral) is curtailing freedom of speech.
This is actually an incredibly false point. The royal family (if treated like anonymous land-owners) would cause a sudden and drastic drop in fundraising within the UK. Assuming their property wasn't seized having them retain their current station is actually a net positive to the British tax-payers - they lose far more potential income each year in free land leases and charitable donations (known collectively as the Crown Estate) to the state then they receive in benefits (known as the Sovereign Grant). This arrangement is financially detrimental to the royal family in terms of absolute value.
I mean… why would the royal family be allowed to “keep” anything in an abolished monarchy? Obviously you should just seize roughly all the property. It’s a product of the State, not the royal family working hard
Maybe? That's a really complicated question honestly - how much of their personal property actually is hereditary wealth and how much is a benefit of their station. I can tell you the answer is neither 0% nor 100% - the royal family (if dethroned) shouldn't be thrown out as paupers and it shouldn't be granted personal control of spaces that enjoy public use. Where precisely that line should be drawn is complicated but if that line leaves them with any significant portion of their current titular wealth the UK will end up losing money. The Crown Estate might be worth around 15.6 Billion, so a few hundred million every year is far less then the family would receive if they liquidated the lands at value and just invested it into an index fund. The actual income of the estate is significantly higher - with a lot of those assets under reporting their actual yield in terms of tourism and public benefits.
I think it's a really complicated question.
Lastly, while we're on this topic - why hasn't the US seized the wealth of the 100 most wealthy individuals unilaterally - that money would be of immense amount of benefit to the country so why do we let wealth accrue?
It's a complicated question with regards to some of their property. It's not at all complicated with the Crown Estates. That is clearly public property. Otherwise Edward VIII would have kept it when he abdicated.
You are completely wrong on the basic facts of this. The Crown Estate belongs to the state, not the royal family. The Sovereign Grant is an arrangement to pay the monarch is paid 25% of the revenue, which would otherwise flow to government coffers like the rest of the revenue. Were the UK to become a republic, the state would simply stop paying this to the monarch, and thus gain revenue.
She also had a "fuck imperialism" sign, and was outside of the cathedral in which QEII's body was lying. Cultures that are more fragile wrt speech norms may object to that.
A better example is the man calling out "who elected him" to the proclamation of Charles III, at a ceremony that had as little as possible to do with funerary rites while still dealing with her son's ascension.
Worth noting that currently, most UK arrests over "offense-giving" (which are increasingly common) are done on behalf of precisely those grievance-based identity groups which anti-monarchists support.
Ah, well the monarchy and corresponding empire to have a history of inflicting massive suffering on various ethnic groups, so I guess there's probably some correlation between republican sentiment and identity (I mean look Irish Twitter). But I think it is not a very compelling reason to write off these sentiments, as the original comment seems to have...
They are being arrested typically for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Often they're being arrested for their own safety, you only have to look at the example of the chip shop owner in Muir of Ord, who posted a video online and now her chippy has a smashed window.
Do you leave the person with the offensive sign there? I can easily see some "have a go hero" deciding to tear the sign to bits and causing a fight to happen.
Arrested for ones own protection makes no sense. That would not be protection then it would be an escape plan. If someone is putting you into handcuffs to protect you they are lying. Any victim of abuse knows the signs of gaslighting.
It's super important to note that many of the people being arrested and otherwise lead away are not attending a funeral. That's 6 days away. Some have been at processions and that might be distasteful. Grossly offensive or abusive though?
Whatever your view on those cases, many of these interactions have happened at proclamations and just in public places, well away from the Queen. One shouldn't be threatened with imprisonment for peacefully airing their personal views.
You defend it all like it's one horrific thing that needs to be stopped, and I find that far more distasteful than anything any of these people have said.
Being rude is grounds for being banned from HackerNews, not for being arrested and thrown in jail.
You can not say you support free speech but also support the arrest of someone for a "abolish the monarchy, fuck imperialism" sign, or for saying "who elected him".
> They are being arrested for being rude about it.
Is this China or Russia? This sounds insane to me. Meanwhile, the UK ruling class is free to gut the NHS and bleed the population dry and none of them give a shit. The British sense of "decorum" is pure bullshit.
>If you are going to attend a funeral […] and hour abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested.
It’s a shame that the UK doesn’t have robust protections for free speech. In the US, you certainly will not be arrested for this. We have Supreme Court precedent preventing it.
> Like the fella who stated that ‘we didn’t vote for him’
In fairness, we didn't vote for the Prime Minister either.
Where was this fella when we needed him in parliament?
I think UK democracy has a much bigger democratic problem than whether there is a symbolic monarch.
Unlike the monarch, the Prime Minister we didn't vote for is a political activist with serious power and a nasty agenda - including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people.
In fairness to the Queen, as far as I know she never asked that we reduce the people's rights and freedoms, and in fairness to the new King, one of the things he is known for is being a climate and environment activist, which was viewed as kooky a couple of decades ago but looks prescient and relevant to the times now.
> Where was this fella when we needed him in parliament?
There's no obligation to protest everything you disagree with, why would you suggest there is? Furthermore, how do you know they _didnt_ protest the PM? The PM may not have been voted for, but a crucial difference is, unlike the monarchy, the position of PM is not handed down by hereditary lineage.
> including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people.
Don't you think perhaps these two events are related? You chastise someone for protesting, whilst bemoaning the right for protest being eroded. A strange contradiction.
> If you are going to attend a funeral, any funeral, be it the Queen’s or anyone else’s and hurl abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested.
The funeral hasn't happened yet, Google tells me it's on September 19, 6 days from now.
Coming from the country that has held Julian Assange in a dungeon for the crime of journalism for years at the behest of the United States, this comes as no surprise. And people wonder why, when UK and other "Western" leaders point at Russia and China and cry about "authoritarianism", people with brains and morality are disgusted with their hypocrisy.
>They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though.
>They are being arrested for being rude about it.
We're truly scratching the bottom of the barrel of pro-censorship arguments here. This is parody-grade stuff. "I am for freedom of speech an all, but this person held a rude sign during a massively public political event. Arrest them and drag them through courts!"
> The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.
Doesn't take a political science degree to see what's wrong with this law. When cops get to decide what is a justifiably loud protest and what isn't you no longer have the right to protest. Protests are meant to disrupt, if you can't be loud about it then it no longer has its intended effect.
They are meant to convince your fellow citizens of your position.
Being a disruptive $#@t, not only defeats that purpose, it actually causes more people to vote against you.
Moreover, emotionally driven teenagers (or stunted "adults") use these protests as a pubescent venting mechanism to smash business and mistreat adults they encounter, like some narcissistic violent therapy session.
> The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.
Also impressive the one lady was simply holding a sign. That doesn't sound very noisy to me...
Disrupting a funeral is one thing. Disrupting a funeral the public is forced to pay millions of pounds for, while other members of said public can't afford food and electricity, is a completely different matter.
I don't think that it is. The rich and powerful are still real people with real grief. I'm not opposed to people protesting parliment or whatever, but let the mourners mourn in peace.
Is it your view that just because the state pays for something the public has every right to do whatever they want with it?
This seems obviously false. Try walking into the petagon some time proclaiming "the public paid for this military base and therefor i have every right to participate in it." And see how far that gets you.
If this were some kind of private function I'd agree with you. But a large, public funeral for a monarch is inherently a political event. It's part of the process of moving from one monarch to the next, which is exactly what the protestors object to, and is literally politics. It is absolutely fair game to protest.
I'll bet vanishingly few of the people with their hackles up over this spoke out in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church when it was in the news for their funeral protests.
Westboro was heckling at funerals for (and attended by) private citizens. The monarchs are public figures. I could imagine some hypothetical reasonable person seeing a difference based on this.
Can't tell which side you're on based on this comment... is the number of potentially offended people greater and so it's a worse crime or is it more of a public event where the public should be entitled to express themselves?
While this isn't at all objective, my feelings on it all started to change when the BBC begun sneaking in pure praise for Charles/monarchy without any balance, having softened us up with the same thing but with the Queen for a few days, knowing no-one would disagree with that. It now feels political.
> Can't tell which side you're on based on this comment
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to pick a side first.
I have no involvement, don't know the facts, haven't followed the discussion. From this thread, I gathered that people are being obnoxious and so they whipped out an ancient law to round them up for. Is selective enforcement good? Probably not. Is it good to stop people from being obnoxious at any funeral? Generally yes. Is the situation GP was posing comparable (random funeral vs. the queen's funeral)? No. Is royalty good? I don't know, I've heard pros (stable face of a country, for foreign relations, without the same person always being in power) and cons (costs).
I'd rather argue about merit and facts than "sides" you're on
...but probably that doesn't fit in a comment anyone is going to read and upvote, so alas.
Sometimes I toy with the idea of having difficult discussions (best example might be nuclear fission energy) in the form of a wiki, where the contents embody the current best known facts, with conclusions logically following from facts. When you change a fact, it cascades and the "thus"es are marked as needing an update. If you don't care for the whole discussion, you can just read the conclusion and find a "because" that you think is wrong somewhere and argue about that. But then, who'd find that enjoyable?
This is a country in which people who share memes mocking the trans flag are arrested. At least they're being consistent.
Although obviously I'd prefer neither being arrested in the first place.
Lèse-majesté is the crime of "offending majesty." It's been an awfully long time since it's been a real law in Europe but I guess anti-royals are pissing the state of enough that they've decided to revive it.
The UK unfortunately doesn't have freedom of speech, it has freedom of expression.
> The woman, 22, was arrested "in connection with a breach of the peace," a Police Scotland spokesperson told NPR, adding that she was formally charged and released, and her case is now pending at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Just to add, you can also be arrested at speakers corner if you upset enough people there and there is "reasonable cause" that they may become violent, despite you speaking peacefully.
This NPR article is false and clearly doesn't understand the laws of the UK.
> doesn't have freedom of speech, it has freedom of expression
Can you help me understand that distinction? With a pretty limited understanding of UK law, my assumption would be that freedom of speech would cover any words but maybe not the specific way they're presented, while freedom of expression would cover even if those words were expressed in less polite way.
> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Yeah, it's a common misunderstanding by Americans (and even British people due to American media influence) that the UK has freedom of speech. Instead it is this _really_ washed out vague protection. NPR clearly have zero idea of this either.
Add on top of this the new hate crime laws that disallow 'hate speech' (which includes critique) of 'protected classes', and you don't really have the right to complain. The police also record "non-crime hate incidents" on your permanent record (zero due process, zero ability to remove it), and the police will quite literally come to visit you and "correct your thinking" (yes, they actually say this).
Personally, I really want to see freedom of speech implemented. This of course directly conflicts with the traditions we know and love, so it's unclear where we go from here. It seems as though freedom of speech is coming whether it matches our culture or not, and many British people already behave as though they already have it.
This is a great time for the British to have a little revolution with very modest aims like this. Both the government and the opposition are indistinguishable warmongering austerians who hate working people, British energy bills are tripling due to elite adventurism, posturing, and US ass-kissing, and the ex-colonies are openly proposing separating from the Commonwealth. What's more, the Queen alternated between a benign pleasantness and a prickly terseness that kept her internal states pretty mysterious and a bit charming, but now they know for a fact that their new King is a useless moron.
Getting rid of their magical fairy kingdom trappings (again) might give the population an impetus to flex some popular sovereignty over their own country. Pair it with the abolition/democratization of the Lords, and they'll finish the revolution that Cromwell spoiled.
> Pair it with the abolition/democratization of the Lords, and they'll finish the revolution that Cromwell spoiled.
Ironically, in the last decade the Lords have a much better track record that the Commons. They applied real scruitiny to the opressive protest bill, the Brexit bill and the bill to deal with unsafe building we discovered in the wake of corporate manslaughter, which was a result of rampant fraud in the construction industry. As a result the lords were threatened with dissolution
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government”
And no, I don’t mean it as a joke
If Britain wants to survive the next 100 years, they need to make some brave decisions. Dissolve monarchy and the class system, get back into EU, and hope Scotland will not declare independence.
Also, USA, wtf, why are you flying the flag at half staff? Did you forget what you fought about in 1776?
(edit: Actually I looked it up and apparently it has flown at half staff for foreign leaders a few times in the past. My bad, knee jerk reaction.)
It's always funny to see how many Americans truly believe in this founding myth.
The American revolution was supported by around 30% of the colonists by the time it started. And that was only after the media-owning elites spent years churning out non-stop pieces trying to promote the perspective. Of course the taxes primarily affected those wealthy elites and they knew a revolution would significantly benefit them
Do you know who John Hancock was? It's often said that this author of the largest signature on the Declaration of Independence was of little to know historical relevance. However I think he's extremely relevant. He represented what the real engine behind the revolution: Rich people that owed a lot of debts to the Brits. In fact if you look through the list you'd find that a huge number of the signers owed debt that they would be freed of, come such a revolution. Alexander Hamilton is now so celebrated precisely because he was one of the very few exceptions to this
Do you have a citation for these claims about the debts? I've seen a lot of different disparaging claims about figures in American history, but I've got to admit this one is new to me, and I can find no citations through Google.
No one with any self-respect can tolerate being ruled by a hereditary monarchy whose justification for being in power is "I'm inherently better than you, and all my descendants will always be better than yours forever"
> Also, USA, wtf, why are you flying the flag at half staff? Did you forget what you fought about in 1776?
Because one half of the Special Relationship had their head of state die? If the Canadian PM were assassinated, would you be up in arms over a half-mast due to the War of 1812?
The problem with the monarchy in the UK is not so much them themselves, but that they are the cornerstone of the remnants of the feudal system. We never had a cataclysmic revolution like the French, though the English Civil War was close. We've also been uninvaded for nearly a thousand years (unlike the French). So we have a fair amount of cruft built up.
America has free speech. Anyone can insult the President of the United States. Soviet Union has free speech, too. Anyone can insult the President of the United States!
I've been a bit disconcerted at the level of unmitigated adulation that's been showered on the late queen by the media. I have nothing bad to say about Elizabeth II but I too do my job every day -- without a staff of hundreds to prepare my breakfast -- and I don't think I will be sanctified the day I keel over. It's all so serious and deeply conservative you'd think we are back in the 1950. In the 1970s Monty Python were allowed to laugh at anything on national television, I suspect that would not be possible today.
I like and admire the Queen, but I also wonder about this. How much of our admiration is the result of the British media giving the Queen essentially 100% positive coverage at all times for 70 years straight?
(Unlike politicians, who will be gone in 4 years or so anyway, media outlets are terrified of upsetting the royal family, who are permanent).
it is weird. Even bloomberg seems to have a newfound religious worship of the british monarchy
I understand that it is popular among the general public because fairytales and costumes and stuff , but i have to shake my head at how some reporters talk seriously about "peaceful transition of power", when there is no power
If this institution lacked power, would it be featured 24/7 internationally, whether we like or not? So maybe there is in fact some unspoken power involved here, even though we're told "it is ceremonial". Sometimes makes you wonder, did the British Empire really die or is it like the un-Dead Soviet Union waiting in the wings to make a comeback?
yes it is dead. this elaborate show is useful to some businesses but irrelevant to the rest of the world. Whatever 'power' comes with celebrity, it's impossible no to have a 'peaceful transition of power' when one of the parties has kicked the bucket.
> it's impossible no to have a 'peaceful transition of power' when one of the parties has kicked the bucket.
I don't think [this is] how power works, specially in a monarchy. Peaceful transition means the power base that has given fealty to Mr. X is now accepting Mr. Y. That is the 'transition'.
That's funny. No. They can put their support behind another contender than Mr. Y (and English history has it's share of examples of crisis of succession, btw). In that case different factions that actually hold power get to duke it out to see whose candidate gets to be the new monarch/overlord/cesar/president. That is typically not peaceful, certainly not at the political level (think Tower of London) and may even involve actual guns and civil wars.
Why in the world are you disconcerted? There is nothing surprising about the adulation at all, it's been this way for literally decades. Were all these people who are "shook" and "jarred" in a coma?
As an American I find it a little weird that Biden ordered flags at half staff until the queen's funeral is over -- 11 days in total I think. I mean she is the queen, and she has been the queen since before most of us, and some of our parents, were born, but she isn't /our/ queen.
I guess it's not that unusual though to lower the flag for a few days on the death of a foreign leader. Apparently we went 3 days for Shinzo Abe. Nothing for Gorbachev, though. (Maybe it would have been worth it just to annoy Putin.) Not sure when the last time was we went 11 days or more for a non-US figure.
She's still a kind of English speaking world figurehead even if there was a spot of bother with that independence kerfuffle over in the American colonies.
I'm not so sure about your last statement: what's considered "acceptable" is always changing so you might be right, but I think there's always been people out there trying to block things so I'm not convinced this is new behaviour.
> In 1979, Monty Python's Life of Brian was considered so controversial it was given an X certificate and banned from some British cinemas.
"The jury acquitted Martin of inciting a riot and reached no verdict on whether she threatened officers' lives. Her legal team was "elated" when jurors found her guilty only of breaching the peace, punishable by no more than a $500 fine and 30 days in jail, investigator Tony Kennedy recalled.
State law defines breachers of the peace as any disturbers, "dangerous and disorderly persons" or people who utter "menaces or threatening speeches." But prosecutors presented the charge as a "high and aggravated" crime, which carries up to 10 years imprisonment. "
Americans are constantly learning that unfortunately you have to fight for your rights. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth have been eroded to various degrees in direct violation to the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still rights.
No. It just means that the prevalent drivel in this discussion about how much better it is in the US vs UK concerning ‘what are you allowed to say so the government isn’t mad’ is moot. I’d wager that those arrested in the UK won’t even see a judge but will be released right after, unlike in the ‘free’ US where what you say to a cop will be fully persecuted and lead to actual jail time of several years, for saying words to a government representative.
When some people were posting “fuck the queen” comments on the original “regina mortua est” HN megathread I thought that was pretty poor form. But I don’t have an issue with protestors. It’s a form of public accountability, which should generally be encouraged. It is quite unpalatable mind you, but then so are monarchies.
How much power does the British monarch still have? I'm from America so I didn't learn much in school about British history post-1776, but my understanding is that they never had an event like the French Revolution or American Revolution that suddenly ended their monarchy, just a long series of minor reductions in the royal family's power going back to the Magna Carta.
From my own (admittedly uneducated on this topic) perspective, British government doesn't make any sense as it looks like a modern republic from a distance but they still have lords, kings, dukes, and other titles of nobility that seem incompatible with that.
Does the King still have the ability to order people around and pass his own laws?
Functionally zero. In theory, the monarch has power, but it is never exerted, because they know that if it was exerted a) it would be ignored, and b) they’d immediately be overthrown.
They act as a head of state in the same way that e.g: Germany has a President.
Noble ranks like Duke and Baron are also completely irrelevant to governance.
Lords _are_ relevant, on the other hand. They form the House of Lords, which plays a role as (simplifying) a check on the power of the House of Commons.
Practically, the UK Monarch (or Japanese emperor) has no discretionary political power at all. Republican Parliamentary systems usually leave some discretionary power to the head of state in either emergencies or for the purpose choosing a party to attempt to form a government.
Hereditary Lords (i.e. the noble aristocracy in the UK) have almost no political power. The ninety or so still in the House of Lords are elected by fellow members of the House of Lords. The remainder (600+) of the peers are appointed by the party in power in the commons.
> British government doesn't make any sense as it looks like a modern republic from a distance
A Canadian perspective... Did you know that king has to approve all of Canada's laws? So when Canadians elect their government, and that people-elected govt passes a law, that's not good enough to become law. It has to get Royal Assent from the current king/queen. Canadians even pledge allegiance to the 'King and his heirs' - and that includes Andrew the Pedophile - its part of the citizenship oath. Many Canadian will fight tooth and nail to keep this system intact.
Australia got smart and changed the citizenship oath some time ago. As a result, you no longer have to pledge to a pedophile!!
TECHNICALLY, the monarchy has total veto power. Realistically though there'd probably be a revolution if they really used that in anyway that isn't in line with the purely ceremonial expectations for the role. They also have special laws made just for them like not having to pay any inheritance taxes to ensure the monarchy stays rich
But that's just domestically. The real pragmatic power is actually in foreign affairs and is way overlooked. A single visit of a British monarch to a regime would basically grant instant validity of their status. Imagine if King Charles III visited the Taliban. Obviously that specific situation is extremely unlikely, but I'd argue that Queen Elizabeth has played a really seminal role in keep some pretty fucked up regimes in power
No-one should be surprised by this. For years now in the UK, people have been being arrested, fined and even jailed for offences like this (including under one particularly egregious and vague law against “gross offence”).
Up until now, it had been people with, admittedly, rather unpleasant views. Perhaps that is why it had been ignored. But we’re now seeing why ignoring it is dangerous.
How can anyone tolerate being a "subject" instead of a citizen? How can you obsequiously sing "God save the Queen\King" as your national anthem? It is just shameful.
I've never been called a british subject to my knowledge. Googling has "Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’".."Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects."
The god save the queen stuff is kind of traditional and doesn't mean much. "God save the queen
/ The fascist regime..." (Sex Pistols) is also kind of traditional and quite popular. No one forces you to sing either but the Pistols did much better in the charts.
A lot of non UK folk seem to have some strange ideas about how it works here. The royals haven't had much power for centuries.
At least we get a figurehead who is generally popular vs say electing a Trump/Clinton and having half the population hate them until they get ejected for someone the other half hates.
692 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 415 ms ] threadThis is true no matter who is president.
Now, if I were saying this about President Harris, say, when she came to visit Biden's body while it was lying in state, that would be deplorable taste. It would be worse if my sign criticized Biden while his family came to pay their respects. That's pretty extreme levels of being a tasteless jerk. It's not grounds for arrest, though... in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/us/protests-policing-geor...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/us-police-br...
"As protesters took to the streets in Indiana on July 6 to decry an alleged hate crime at Lake Monroe, a red Toyota Corolla sped toward them, dragging two protesters along, on the hood and on the side of the car. Both suffered non-life-threatening injuries. A few days later, a 66-year-old white woman was arrested and charged in the incident."
It was a point of pride for many right wingers to threaten to crash their cars into non-violent protestors.
By far my favorite example is the UC Davis pepper spray event. Where sitting sedintary protestors were pepper sprayed by campus police (the school then engaged a PR firm to attempt to wipe evidence from the internet...)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper_spray_incident
An american reporter visits a communist country and asks a person on the street about freedom. He says "America is so free I can stand up on the subway and criticize and say anything about the president, no one would care about it. How is the situation here?" The person replies: "Well I can can stand up on the subway and criticize and say anything about the US president here too, no one would care about it!"
You must have missed the summer of love that we had two years ago, when crowds of protesters were regularly beaten and gassed, and often arrested (Charges would, of course, get dropped, because it's not actually illegal to protest.)
But you are correct, it's possible to protest the British monarchy as much as you want in the US, with next to consequences. :)
The only fire and violence I see in that one is started by the guys in uniform.
The UK is a medieval hell hole whose sole redeeming feature is that it's contained by the Atlantic ocean.
Least we forget a main part of the protest are against a pedophile who probably ordered the murder of Epstein.
Bad taste isn't grounds for arrest in the UK either. In the unlikely event any of these people end up actually in court, they'll be charged with something else, in most cases it seems like public order offences. The same sort of charge you'd get if the cops arrest you drunk outside a bar yelling abuse at people and they decide you won't just sober up and go home with a caution.
Here's what the ACLU were able to have released from the White House (in the Bush era) about what the Secret Service do to prepare before a presidential visit:
"As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site"
It doesn't say they get arrested, but of course if you're not free to go about your business, then does it really matter whether you were "arrested" or not ?
> For this section report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
> 22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges, convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
> - Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?
It reads in part:
For this section report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
- In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
- In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
- In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges, convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
- In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
- Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?
The US has laws against protesting at the funerals of Armed Service members. If you really want to rage against something, why not the thing from your own society, instead of the thing from some other society?
Can you though? I seem to remember someone getting arrested for tweeting some joke about a UK war hero because the joke was in poor taste or something.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30156923
I'm sure tweeting something "grossly offensive" about the late queen would also be grounds for arrest and prosecution.
Try that at the next ex-President's funeral.
Are you sure? It's not absolutely certain.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1112/funeral-pr...
Not too long ago: (Anti-war protesters arrested and beaten in Russia) https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60641749
And i suspect the US will follow the UK in the upcoming midterm election, 2024 is shaping up to be very interesting too
Democracy is taking a huge hit in the west
At what point "democracy: becomes a facade, an empty ritual?
(And sadly, more an more a justification to go at war)
You're still stuck with a rigid 2-party system and a rather meager choice when it comes to electing a president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
The situation is not that cut and clear.
I had a joke hat that looked like a MAGA hat (red with white text). I never wore it out of the house because at the time I took public transit everywhere and I didn't want to wind up wearing somebody's coffee or be assaulted (sure it probably would have taken awhile but still, not worth the risk). Were that to happen I can just about guarantee the crime would be pursued by the police about as vigorously as a petty theft report. The government probably would have left me alone but how much is that worth when other people will do their dirty work for them?
Mostly supportive.
They are being arrested for being rude about it.
Was the fella on radio 4 who stated to the entire nation that ‘King Charles and his family should be put in a council house and that the Monarchy should be abolished’ arrested? No.
If you are going to attend a funeral, any funeral, be it the Queen’s or anyone else’s and hurl abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested.
There were arrests in which the arrestee has been unarrested, when the police made a mistake. Like the fella who stated that ‘we didn’t vote for him’ when King Charles was pronounced King.
You can, quite legally, protest the Monarchy. Being a dick about it and trying to upset people mourning will however be considered a breach of the peace or some other public order offence.
> They are being arrested for being rude about it.
Got it. Arrested for poor taste.
Hard to see the justification for that in a democracy?
People were arrested at Margaret Thatchers funeral for the same thing.
It’s not rocket science. You’re not allowed to do that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_l...
Because that case doesn't strike down the state laws preventing protests in close proximity. It just ruled that the private citizen can't get lots of money for emotional distress caused by a protest.
Even in the US I would think protesting a funeral to be in extremely poor taste, no matter the target. What’s that Latin phrase about the recently dead?
Wait, what? Pretty sure dogs don't have the anatomical capability to do a nazi salute. At best they can just lift a leg up, but is that really a nazi salute?
Father Ted is Irish as in Republic of Ireland as in not UKoGB - we share a very, very strange border. Having said that, Father Ted was turned down by RTE for being too Irish and was eventually financed by the BBC! Thankfully it eventually aired because it is absolutely belting.
The cast and creators were Irish though.
If that falls under the rule you're describing, doesn't that render it impossible to protest a ceremony, as long as it happens after a funeral? It seems you're defining away the protest of hereditary succession as unacceptably rude?
The coronation is months away, he was protesting the ascension at the Queen's funeral procession. That does not avoid disparagement of the Queen.
I certainly don't think he should be arrested but he's clearly boneheaded. He'll have plenty of time to protest both the ascension and the coronation, of someone who is a much softer target that the Queen, especially considering she's just died.
PR own goal if ever there was one. Even Extinction Rebellion have had the good sense to postpone their demos. Is there anyone but the Western Baptist Church who thinks it's a good idea to protest at funerals?
They say if you support free speech you'll end up defending vile people, and it's true, he shouldn't be arrested, he should be allowed to say what he said, but he is vile and it was stupid.
Symon Hill was arrested for protesting at the regional proclamation in Oxford: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/21275817.photo-gallery-pro...
Where did you get the impression that this was a funeral procession?
Which means it was still not a coronation, it also wasn't a funeral procession, I still think he's boneheaded but not as much as before or nearly as much as the ones in Edinburgh, and none of them should've been arrested (maybe perhaps the one that shouted at Prince Andrew, but definitely not the others).
It is worth noting that a long-running tradition in the UK is that if a policeman disagrees with a piece of legislation and the opportunity arises to challenge it favourably in court, he arrests somebody under the legislation in question in what may be favourable but reasonable circumstances (favourable to the defendant) in order to circumscribe the limitations of the act in question. As a consequence, in many ways, I therefore think that this may also be a challenge by police officers to the validity of the conservative government's latest legislation that aims to ban "disruptive" protests, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was largely modified to deal with the (IMO effective) protests of the Insulate Britain campaign who recently brought major motorways to a crawl. It is a deeply divisive and very authoritarian bill, and would cover this situation. Specifically, it provides that:
In my opinion, this has already been used to stifle what I find to be legitimate protest – "on 28 June 2022, the day the act came into force, anti-Brexit activist Steve Bray had his amplification equipment seized by police under the 2011 Police Reform Social Responsibility Act. The 2022 act extends the area around the House of Commons in which protest is restricted under the 2011 act." [1].As recognised by the police, positing the possibility of transitioning to a republic (from a constitutional monarchy) is almost certainly a clear-cut case of a legitimate piece of protest, and so if someone _did_ protest accordingly _without_ being rude and disruptive I think this would be a perfect opportunity for the courts to throw out the charge.
Edit: Further bits of fun law – "public nuisance" is both a tort and a very old legal concept, recommended effectively for removal and updating from the criminal statutes by the Law Commission in 2015 [2]. It is described quite formally in many words (c.f. [2]) but more usefully defined by the fact that it
Public nuisance therefore is a much lower bar to offence than either the public order act or breach of the peace would be; and unlike those acts there is no requirement for a <...Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL costs) without any consideration as to what that does to your society.
> Protests should be allowed
They are.
> destroying public property
Is illegal and you can be arrested for it.
> advocating violence or hate
Is illegal and you can be arrested for it.
You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime.
Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
> Is illegal and you can be arrested for it.
This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat.
Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech.
You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1].
For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion:
> a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.”
[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
I generally like the right to protest, but i dont want 100% free for all.
What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
The fact that all state power eventually comes down to men with guns.
>What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest.
You either get out of there or you shoot back, that's really not a hard question. And to your second question yes, especially if the other side is shooting or threatening to shoot. Safer if you have guns as well than only they have guns. And just look at Kyle Rittenhouse, he would have been dead if he hadn't been armed. The third person he shot straight up said that he would have shot Kyle if Kyle hadn't vaporized his bicep first.
>For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
Once again it makes you safer, because they can't risk throwing molotovs at you from out in the open. Your being armed helps you control when and from where they could possibly attack you with molotovs or whatever.
My personal experience of backpacking around the world was replete with lectures from 25-year-old European women about the US's issues. They were of such poor quality that I mostly just smiled and shrugged it off, knowing that it'd be a waste of my vacation to try and explain to them the nuances of cultural difference. But I had the delightful catharsis of schooling a particularly-obnoxious British girl on her country's role as the primary contender for history's greatest supervillain (unsurprisingly, her grasp of history and politics was.... poor).
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...
Or how about how everyone knows the political affiliations of supreme court judges? In a normal country judges are apolitical.
There's a bunch of reasons why the US is considered a flawed democracy, with the score going down every year, in the Democracy Index.
If shitting in the street were legal would you complain when people passed a law to stop your bad behaviour?
This isn't a case of protestors being repeatedly ignored - the public discussion about the monarchy is unfolding in most media outlets right now and other forms of protest are still quite available.
Additionally, while I think this is extremely unhealthy mentally, there was a not insignificant proportion of Britain that felt they had a personal relationship with the queen even if they never met her for tea.
But in fairness to the police there seems to be a mass fervour at the moment and they may actually be doing the hecklers a service by taking them away for their own safety...
The word hurling in the context of insults or obscenities means vocalizing them in a very audible fashion. The article states that the woman at St Giles was not audibly protesting but rather holding a sign. Given that she was quietly expressing her opinion, tasteful or not, it seems she could have been quietly removed without being arrested.
>"In widely seen photos, a woman holding a sign reading "Abolish monarchy" and "F*** imperialism" was arrested on Sunday at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh, where the queen's body is to lie at rest until Tuesday.
Further the object of their protest was the institution and neither the mourners or the deceased.
The other two people mentioned in the article who were vocal, were outside on public streets and not in a Church. The article states they were near parade barricades. Again the object of their protest was the institution and it was being done on public streets. Surely you are allowed to express your discontent about an institution on a public street. That's not rocket science.
>"And in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall."
Again we have a woman who was holding up a sign on a public street "near Westminster Hall."
These tired strawmen need to stop. Anti-royalists are being arrested for expressing anti-royal views in inconvenient places, not "hurling obscenities at a funeral".
Is there some democracy somewhere which doesn't have a public nuisance/breaching the peace style law?
It is only by convention that he doesn't, that will only last until you get a bad king/queen and thr right opportunity.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
Just get that fixed as well, that's not a great thing to have around.
Expressing your belief is an action. Speaking, writing, etc. are all actions. Belief without action doesn't exist
If that thief gets arrested, is it just because it is poor taste? No.
Same thing with hurling obscenities at a funeral.
If not, why did you respond with this to a question about is it morally right to protest at a funeral?
Is Putin coming?
In case I'm misunderstood, I don't feel strongly either way about the British royalty, but I'm OK with allowing a significant proportion of the population being left alone to get on with what ceremony they want to do, given that they want to do it.
Even more so if the public is the one paying for the funeral in the first place. You're definitely allowed to be rude at a funeral you're footing the bill for.
Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service.
For trespassing. This example has nothing to do with speech.
> Similar reports emerged Monday, including one case involving a man who was seen being forcibly removed from a parade barrier after shouting at the royal procession leading to the cathedral. He was reportedly heckling Prince Andrew.
This comparison just has nothing to do with speech at all. It’s categorically different. You’d get arrested for breaking into the Oval Office even if you remained silent the whole time.
Private funeral? Ok. State funeral that is essentially a big spectacle? Definitely not.
And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer taste. But the movie producers have money.
The rules are different for regular plebs, that's as simple as that. And the lesson is that everyone should know their place.
A random guy making a nazi salute for a joke and uploading it on youtube is more like documentary evidence of a crime, not an art form. There is a reason promoting nazi salutes is a crime in most of Europe, and it really doesn't matter he did it as a joke - it's simply not a laughing matter. Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me, given the attrocities comitted by Nazis against our people - I think doing a nazi salute publicly(and I count uploading videos on youtube as "public"), even as a joke, is not acceptable at all.
Sure, this is a difference in norms (and law) that I'm intentionally taking for granted, and trying to further understand. If equally-applied, it's a little more comprehensible to me (eg Germany requiring massive game studios to censor Nazi symbolism in WW2 games).
But I have a much stronger revulsion reaction to the idea that the govt should be in the business of deciding whose expression is "actually" art, and inconsistently allowing well-connected creators latitude that nobodies aren't privy to. I don't doubt that there are many people find the Nazi pug funnier than the Father Ted joke (and vice versa); the idea that the latter is uniquely acceptable because a _British govt agency_ decided it was funny is astonishing to me.
Not what happened though.
The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist", while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so. I mean it would be funny if it wasn't terrifying and Orwellian.
I don't think anyone has this kind of mindset - at least I certainly don't. Anyone should be arrested for joking with nazi salutes, no matter if they are rich or poor. Not sure why you think that corporations get away with it - is there any corporation out there that uploads "joke" nazi salutes to youtube and gets away with it? If you mean films specifically, then films get approval of the British Film Comission which judges anything submited based on artistic merit. We can disagree with its rulings, but it's not like a corporation has "the right to do whatever it likes" as you put it. Quite the opposite in fact.
>>The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist"
I don't find this funny at all, glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter.
>>while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so
You mean....the police?
I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies. The horrors of WW2 are still too fresh and the pain too great to allow it - we have made these laws to make sure that nazis don't come back, and anything associated with them is banned. You might think "well what sort of harm does a single youtube video do, the guy was clearly joking". And yeah, it's obvious to you and me - but to some, that will be a "funny" thing to repeat. After all, they are only joking, they don't mean it really, it's fine, right? No, it's not, and unfortunately it has to be stomped out as early as possible. Again, I understand that this might sound alien especially to American readers, but I don't have anything else to say on that matter, other that it feels like the right thing to do, given the topic.
Oh I think they do. They won't admit it when you put it like that of course, many probably don't even admit it to themselves because they simultaneously see themselves also as resistance fighters raging against powerful established interests, on behalf of the oppressed.
> I don't find this funny at all,
I wasn't talking about the content of the joke. I think nazi jokes can be pretty hilarious though, especially the ones where they do mock salutes. Perhaps you just have to appreciate a bit of good old British humor to feel that way, though.
> glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter.
I believe you probably genuinely think a pug doing a salute is glorifying nazis, that nobody else could reasonably disagree, and that society needs to be protected from this and stamping it out by locking up commoners who dare to defy the state edicts.
> You mean....the police?
The police, the prosecutors, the judges, the legislators. Sure.
> I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies.
At least when it comes to the UK, I don't think so. The British are known for doing comedies of the war and nazis almost from the start. They have had a very long tradition of joking about nazis including mocking their salutes, as well as giving their rich and ruling class a double standard about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddWNMSUbcGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb5zUG9UzFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWjCkcAmzDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWIyVRNAxCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f--KSEkC8Ik
https://www.thenews.com.pk/assets/uploads/updates/2020-10-06...
This one's even a recent German comedy featuring Hitler himself doing a nazi salute!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUZi67BmY_M
So no I think you're wrong, it's revisionist to say that satirizing nazis including and mocking their salutes was some big offensive taboo.
I think the society needs to be protected from trivialization of Nazi gestures and symbology, not from pugs on youtube specifically. I know you are trying to reduce it to absolute absurdity so my argument can be easily dismissed, but I'm sure you can also see how it wouldn't be appropriate to have a short Tik Tok video of someone making a Nazi salute and then saying "it's just a joke, everyone relax". No one got hurt, they only did it for the views, but it still wouldn't be ok - not because we want to live in a society of oppresion and censorship, but because using a nazi salute as a joke in itself without any context(context like in all the examples you posted) is poor taste at best. Can we at least agree on that?
>> it's revisionist to say that satirizing nazis including and mocking their salutes was some big offensive taboo.
I also live in the UK, and I think we are arguing about two separate things. One is mocking nazis in art and media - there you are absolutely correct, there is a history there and it is generally allowed.
What I'm pointing out is that I don't believe European societies accept Nazi salutes as jokes pretty much anywhere outside of art/comedy/standup context. Go to a party in the UK and start marching with your hand raised up straight, if anyone complains say "it's a joke bro" - see how fast you get kicked out. My bet is very very very fast.
That's my entire feeling about this - that a random short YT clip of nazi salutes is the equivalent of that "it's a joke bro" mentality. It's not allowed not because we love oppression, it's not allowed because it trivializes something that has left such deep scars on our societies.
No, I don't agree with anything you said in that paragraph. As I said, the mindset is alien to me. My attitude is not one of subservience to the government and I don't look to the ruling class as my savior, protector, my better, wiser, or even inherently good.
And taste is entirely on the tongue of the beholder.
> I also live in the UK, and I think we are arguing about two separate things.
I don't think so. You said "making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies", which is wrong as I provided evidence for. nazi salutes as a joke is in fact acceptable even in Germany -- at least when it is the rich and powerful doing it. If you are revising your position now, don't paint it like we were just arguing past one another.
> What I'm pointing out is that I don't believe European societies accept Nazi salutes as jokes pretty much anywhere outside of art/comedy/standup context.
What you are also pointing out is that you believe it's okay for rich and powerful people and corporations to make said jokes and anoint themselves "deciders" about who may make jokes and who should be punished for making jokes.
Teaching a pug to do nazi salutes is a joke. Really. Handwringing about the raw horrors of the war or the threat of the reich rising again if this is allowed just isn't credible. It's the same fearmongering and denouncements and threats that the powerful have always used to silence the people and justify their oppression.
The nazis did not rise because Germans were permitted to make tasteless jokes. They rose because Germans were able to be convinced that their fellow citizens posed a grave threat to them, and that they needed the government to protect them and save their society by oppressing this menace.
You absolutely do, and spend several paragraphs justifying it, I'm terribly embarrassed on your behalf that I had to read that.
1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-04-20-060420... - the government didn't directly step in in this case but the protestors were effectively silenced by way to crowds of decent folks with loud motorcycles.
However, the UK is a kingdom in various important ways, and this was the funeral of the head of state and the head of the official state religion.
People want a figurehead. If you elect the figurehead they have political power (because of democratic legitimacy) and that's bad. Monarchy is better for this purpose.
The US governance model is unsound, it's been around for only a relatively brief period and it's crumbling. France's setup is better, but if there had been some way to not execute the King of France I think they'd be doing just fine with some guy in a fancy hat living in one of their palaces and somebody to represent France as an idea who isn't connected to a political executive.
France deposed its last two kings and its last emperor without executing them so I think we can safely assume than no actually no one wants a king there.
Henri, compte de Chambord (the inflexible idiot, proud descendant of a line of either inflexible or too flexible idiots), is thus considered as the French Washington - without him the Republic wouldn't have been possible.
No, that’s only Tiers and the other idiots of the French right who had already dishonoured France during the the semaine sanglante and was only elected by the part of France which wasn’t occupied by Prussia. The left was republican but the commune had temporary weakened it. There was no way a return to monarchy would have hold. The population wasn’t really in favour of it which is why the third kept going.
Their disagreement amongst the right went much further than the flag anyway. No one agreed about who should rule and under which constitution.
Not sure the US is crumbling, there are some alarming elements but then we've always had our fair share of dummies over here. Somehow we've stumbled our way into a pretty powerful position, but of course as the UK can attest, global power can evaporate quite quickly. Hypothetically, if we undergo a Rome style transition from representative government to empire, does that count as stable?
> in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall.
If you count that as rude, you're essentially counting any dissent as rude, no?
Edit: there's an even better example, of a man who was nowhere near any funerary rites, calling out "who elected him" at the proclamation of Charles' ascension.
https://twitter.com/paulpowlesland/status/156935177260655002...
Or, more precisely, he was going around with this blank sign, asking officers whether he would be arrested if he were to write that on the blank paper, according to the account here:
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/man-said-warned-risked-arre...
Which is substantially worse.
Rudeness is so subjective and context sensitive that it really shouldn't form the basis for arrests
Closest I can think of is the 12th July, which is a holiday, but not one celebrating burning Catholics[0]. You might be referring to the bonfires that are lit on the 11th, but that's not a holiday.
Aside from some small events in Scotland, the 12th July is not celebrated in the rest of the UK.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth
Plus it's taught in school as an English event, and we have enough of our own history going on in the early 1600s.
It's also neither a holiday in Northern Ireland[0] nor England [1]
[0] https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/bank-holidays
[1] https://www.gov.uk/bank-holidays
Why did you post that comment?
(The jail sentence was suspended, but that’s hardly the point. Any criminal conviction, even a fine, carries the ultimate threat of jail, or, if you resist arrest, even death — all this, for a joke).
I've lived on these shores (South Somerset) for 52 years now and I have made the most awful jokes about some things as anyone probably has here. However, there is a point beyond which I won't go - causing deliberate hurt.
I don't know about the particular case that you refer to or actually skirt around - citation needed please.
A joke does not cause hurt beyond a slight nick with a possible small amount of blood loss. Beyond that it is not a joke and is an insult.
Funny how that works.
specifically, why would we bring to account those responsible for the actual fire anytime soon? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/21/as-the-grenf...
I'm just saying that it's not worse than direct censorship.
It does not seem like having a "fuck imperialism" sign should ever get you arrested in a country that is supposedly one of the closest allies of the US.
Hmmmm... /s?
Okay, fair point – I missed the fact that SA is also currently a somewhat key US ally.
But you know what I mean, hopefully. The UK has typically been close enough socially and politically that the term "Special Relationship" has its own Wikipedia page [1].
----------------------------------------
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...
But the principle of freedom of speech seems generally more accepted, which is why Brittany Martin's case would be recognized by most Americans here for the racist outrage that it is. On the other hand, you have UK people elsewhere in the thread shrugging "yeah, that's a law" [1]), which is what was surprising to me.
----------------------------------------
[1] An example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32817744
Of course, unless, by ‘principle’ you mean ‘only under certain conditions, sometimes, for some things to be said, by some people, to some specific set of people, YMMV’, in which case I fail to see the difference to the UK (or Saudi Arabia, for that matter). You also have that complete principle of freedom to praise the prince in SA.
Digging far away, only the US tried to ban alcohol consumption, an angle only islamic countries are also interested in as far as I know. Looking back only a few weeks ago, abortion protection has been abolished nation wide. To only take super salient points.
1. Not all of the arrests have been made at a "funeral" 2. It wasn't a funeral 3. If you're going to have a very public precession, parading a body through the streets with all the obedients lapping it up, surely you have to have a level of tolerance for dissenting voices? I imagine the disruption this event caused on Edinburgh was pretty large...
There's wall to wall coverage of this event happening worldwide right now, we need room for the dissenting voices too. Otherwise it's just outright sycophancy
Well... that's what the monarchy practice is all about. God-like status for some god-forsaken reason. Blind sycophancy.
Better to direct that impulse towards a dignified institution that does nothing but attract tourists and occasionally signal society’s values than towards something that tries to have efficient and lethal decision-making power.
Surely we should resist our less productive qualities, like sycophancy. Not try to channel it to some "worthy cause".
I don’t see how your view isn’t personally exhausting. And I don’t see what’s so bad about trying to channel our less productive qualities to better ends than letting them run wild and wishing they didn’t exist.
And if we must channel some unavoidable desires then must it be to adore people who won life's lottery? (Or must we heap praise upon someone who appears to have done little to move the needle forward?)
Solving this problem requires solving coordination problems. Solving coordination problems requires creating a sense of community where people are motivated to act beyond their self interest. Collective motivation at that level requires symbolism and ceremony tapping into the deepest familial affections of the human heart.
The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
Citation needed.
> The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
Monarchs are born into unearned power, wealth, and privilege. They are the last people I'd consider successful at coordinating humanity for the better. Great Britain's own history is drenched in enough innocent blood. Whatever gains originated there appear largely attributable to luck and or non-royal endeavors.
Others will do otherwise.
You might kick one demon out of the house and get seven in return.
How?
> Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
We've more or less gotten rid of royalty, and now we have celebrities shamelessly shilling just about anything - what an improvement! I would prefer neither, but I don't think that's ever going to happen without people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.
I agree with you on the monarchy, and I'm an atheist as well, and I still can't help but read your comment as divisive and distracting from your earlier argument for a sarcastic barb at the bible.
You haven't even argued against the metaphor at all, you've only stated you think the bible is illogical. For what it's worth there are secular equivalents of this sort of risk analysis metaphor; the bird in the hand, a stitch in time, one today is worth two tomorrows, etc.
To the procession or the monarchy? If you say the procession, sure. If you're talking about dissenting voices against the monarchy, I think that can be done without disrupting a memorial service.
A large portion of the life of the royal family is public, even funded by the taxpayer, so to me it makes sense to allow for opposing viewpoints to be heard. Perhaps you can argue that a memorial service isn't the most appropriate time (though, I don't really subscribe to this viewpoint given just how much this memorial is rammed down our throats) to protest, I do think its where its likely to generate the most coverage. There is never going to be a more appropriate time to get people to listen
Edit: Just to clarify the point further - Not all of the arrests being discussed were made in Edinburgh (where the procession took place). Its debatable how much impact a person holding a blank sign in Oxford has on the events in Edinburgh (though I would wager its infinitesimally small). Equally, holding a sign with a swearword on it doesn't really "disrupt" in any meaningful sense either. A lot of people defend the police action on the grounds that it "may" have lead to violence via provocation and the person was arrested for "their own safety", but in that case why follow through with the charge? Rather than "de-arresting" (whatever that means) afterwards
Edit: evidently people are confused. Here it is from the horse’s mouth: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...
https://britishheritage.com/royals/royal-family-cost-british...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-57559653
In the sense that that arrangement could be reversed without massive upcry, a constitutional crisis, and the dissolution of the monarchy? Not realistically. The government has de facto control of the Estate, and the monarchy receives a de facto taxpayer-funded income (plus their private ownership through other property.)
Take a look at "the official web site of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present." [1]
That website has a webpage devoted to the "Royal Finances" [2] that says, "There are three sources of funding for The Queen, or officials of the Royal Household acting on Her Majesty’s behalf, in both a public and private capacity. These are: the Sovereign Grant, the Privy Purse and The Queen’s personal wealth and income."
"The Sovereign Grant: This is the amount of money provided by Government to the Royal Household in support of The Queen’s official duties, including the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces: Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews, the residential and office areas of Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and the buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks."
[1] https://www.royal.uk/about-site
[2] https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0
Ultimately the origins of most property is tied up in violence, not just that of the royal family.
To respond only to your financial arguments: there are different ways of looking at the costs and benefits of the UK royals.
Firstly, taxation:
“the monarchy cost the taxpayer £102.4m”. Last tax year HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) “collected £716.0 billion in taxes”[0].
Let’s assume the “cost of living crisis” affects 10 million people. £100 million given to them would mean an extra 10 quid per person per annum. A worthwhile difference, but hardly solving the problem. There’s way more pounds of flesh or fat to cut elsewhere in the budget.
Secondly: costs and waste are easy to see, but gains are often not seen. Does the UK earn more from the royals than the royals cost?
“[The royals] contributed an estimated $2.7 billion annually to the U.K. economy prepandemic. The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism, but Haigh notes there are other financial benefits, such as free media coverage of Britain (which was an estimated $400 million in 2017). There are also many valuable royal warrants granted by the monarch—essentially a stamp of approval on high-end consumer products like Barbour jackets and Johnnie Walker whisky. [snip] The economic advantages for companies and institutions in the royal family’s orbit far exceed the $550 million cost associated with the family’s massive operating expenses, according to Haigh.”[-1].
Of course, there are non-monetary costs and gains of the monarchy that are much harder to value.
Pure ownership in dollars “How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works”[-1³] can be compared against the wealth of other dynastic wealth families. It doesn’t make the top 10 in the world[π]. And probably not #1 in the UK[§] with the first royal family showing at #12 (although there are non-$ benefits such as status of being royalty, and non-$ costs/risks).
Even in New Zealand we are all paying a few dollars a year for costs related to the monarchy[1].
[-1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielshapiro/2021/03/10/inside-...
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmrc-tax-and-nics-r...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_New_Zealand
[π] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052416/top-10...
[§] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list
Edits: added details.
But the reason I did so was to underline the point that the public have a right to attend, whatever their point of view, since its likely that a % of the cost for the proceedings will fall on the taxpayer
I merely did some googling because I was sceptical! Disclaimer: I am not a royal apologist: born and live in the “colonies”, and I am not a fan of the remaining encumbrances that New Zealand has with any royalty.
This point is being made all over the thread and seems disingenuous. The extremely public memorial service for the reigning monarch is a deeply political event. If this was some private service being protested, even if it was the royal family, the point would stand. But this is not that. Not only is the transfer of power to the heir at the moment of death a huge part of the monarchy by design, the memorial service itself is used to affirm that same system in an extremely public and official way. If people can't protest that because it's a "memorial service" then when can they protest the monarchy? I'm sure protesting it when the queen was ill would also be in poor taste. And apparently protesting the new king right now as he is being declared king is also not possible. What's left?
If they want to avoid making a change, they use this to put us off. The objections seem so plausible. But I’ve learned to use it to gauge when they have no intention of ever listening to us.
Very similar to your monarchy in many respects.
To be fair, when you consider that the Queen lived for 96 years and there hasn't been an event like this since 1953, the cost spread out over that much time really isn't that much.
Long live the King!! (to keep costs down)
Did you miss the whole Platinum Jubilee celebration two months ago for the Queen? [1] The scope of that was also over the top and costs 10's of millions of pounds. There was also the Saphire Jubilee 5 years ago, the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the Golden Jubilee in 2002, there's at least a few others as well.
What are the Crown Estate assets worth? How many billions? And the public are not only expected to foot the bill for this over the top pageantry but they are supposed to do so with unwavering fealty? And at a time when the average person is worried about skyrocketing inflation and energy costs?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_...
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-a...
"In exchange for this public support, The Queen surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the last ten years, the revenue paid to the Exchequer is £3 billion for public spending."
Basically by allowing the monarchy a fund to be used to carry out their public (and private) duties, the surplus of royal holdings revenue goes into public spending. I don't know the exact numbers but the situation is a LOT more complex than "the taxpayer pays for the monarchs, reeee".
See: https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-57559653
and
Here are some of the key figures from the royal accounts for 2020-2021:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/how-much-...
The RF owns the Crown Estate. Of this estate the UK government sits on/uses part of that estate. Therefore they're essentially paying "rent" for what they're using.
However it used to be that the RF received all of the income from the Crown Estate. The SG was an agreement that they would forgo taking all of the income and only a portion of it; the rest goes to public spending.
Hell, they even had to invoke a provision to make up the amount should it fall: "A decrease in the Crown Estate's rental income during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the first use of the provision that prevents the value of the Sovereign Grant from falling, with the Treasury committing to make up the shortfall.".
It's a weird system for sure. The treasury pays out rent for all Royal Holdings that are being used by the goverment/public. Then 15%~ of that rent (plus income from other parts of the holdings) is available to the RF as a part of the SG. The rest goes back to the public.
There is a valid point made that security isn't included in these costs/returns, though. But at the end of the day, it's because the RF owns huge swathes of land and businesses, etc that they are paid. Sure they could be stripped of them but that sets a precedent.
This isn't a private funeral. Hell it's not even a funeral, it's a procession and a tax payer funded public event as well. I can _maybe_ get asking the person with the "fuck imperialism" sign to not use a sign with "fuck" on it (Don't mind myself but I know plenty of old folk will) but there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone declaring "Not my King".
On the plus side we now have viral examples of how Tory policies have in fact stepped on freedom of speech, contrary to their claims.
What exactly is an "obedient"? Are you really deploying a disparaging tag on people who are mourning? That seems a bit crass to me.
"we need room for the dissenting voices too" - I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right.
I also find the sheer amount of coverage a bit overwhelming but in the end no one knows what is appropriate - it's not happened before like this - and let's face it, if you were running a TV channel or radio or whatever, you would probably err on the side of caution too unless you were decidedly commercially stupid!
No one really knows what is appropriate. A lot of the ceremonies are only now being televised.
I have to say that, whilst the sheer bulk of 'er Maj programmes is starting to feel a little excessive, I understand why. Some of them are pretty good too.
We will pop out of the other side of this event and the world will continue to turn but we must remember that a King and his bros and moes (sorry!) and their kids and grandkids and great-grandkids have lost a pretty decent human. As have we all.
They are an odd lot and they are our odd lot. If it helps, I understand that they are a net gain financially via tourism alone. Not sure how that is costed but I suspect it is probably true.
It's fine to imply you prefer a republic instead or perhaps something else but why not be positive about your preferred solution instead of sniping at the current situation.
What exactly do you want?
Yeah, its a crass term I will agree with you there. The public has come out in droves to support the royal family and respect the ongoing proceedings and a small number have vocally voiced their opposition to the situation and are being condemned for doing so. So, I used this charged term rather cheaply to paint with broad strokes the kind of person I imagine to lap up this unique moment.
> I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right.
Here I also agree with you that its nice to hear that C4 was airing voices of people with dissenting perspectives, but I don't necessarily think it should be confined to the TV or the internet as the "appropriate place" to air such views. I think going out and publicly protesting it is much more impactful
> What exactly do you want?
For people to realise that this isn't just a private occasion for immediate family to pay their respects to the recently departed. That the Royal family, for better or worse, has and continues to play a significant role in the ongoing story of this country and in having such a prominent and public position should be tolerant (even understanding?) of those who oppose, rather than to have it simply be quashed and scrubbed away
I'm not too sure yet what on earth is going on here. It is unprecedented and I think the media are quite scarred by what happened when Diana died and the subsequent events. I remember those days quite well.
I think that we are still learning how to grieve as a nation. I lost my mum 25 odd years back (about a year after Diana passed away) and have buried quite a lot of family since and come to terms with some of the seamier sides of life. It is the way of things but I don't think that Britain, let alone any other country has worked out how to deal with death properly.
It sometimes looks quite bizarre but I think that the UK has the basics laid for a pretty good mechanism for dealing with grief. It will work itself out somehow.
That said, I understand that not everyone is a fan of the royals and would prefer a republic. For now, why not recognise a loss of a person who has been here for 90+ years and tomorrow we'll debate the future.
If that "pretty decent human" saw you were on fire, she wouldn't have deigned to put you out with her piss, and neither would any of her "odd lot." She wasn't your doddering, sweet old grandma, she was literally draped in blood-jewels stolen from two subjugated and enslaved continents.
Scotland in particular has a long running loathing of the monarchy, so any superheated response is not remotely surprising.
Anyone obsequious enough to happily sing "God Save the Queen\King" and tolerate being ruled by elitists assholes called Royalty in 2022
Thanks to the Internet, there is ample room for all kinds of voices.
Conversely Whilst considered in egregiously poor taste, burlish crass and offensive protests are generally permitted in the USA provided they are performed on public property. a prime example is the Westboro Baptist Church, a cavalcade of questionably religious zealots who protest everything from LGBTQ funerals to the funerals of war veterans. They shout, scream, and generally send mourners into distress and misery for the duration of their service.
and they'd win
I think it's a really complicated question.
Lastly, while we're on this topic - why hasn't the US seized the wealth of the 100 most wealthy individuals unilaterally - that money would be of immense amount of benefit to the country so why do we let wealth accrue?
He wasn’t good at making decisions.
When King George died, his stamp collection went to his widow, who kept it until her death at 102.
There’s probably personal property like that scattered throughout the family tree.
Also The Queen has a hell of a lot of hidden wealth.
Am I allowed to be rude to a cashier because I pay them?
Do you not see what (non-monetary) price public figures pay for their role?
If prince Andrew gets to parade around in public give the peasants some leeway as well
A woman who held an “abolish monarchy” sign at a proclamation ceremony for King Charles III in Edinburgh has now been charged with a criminal offence.
That's not a funeral, nor was her political statement rude.
A better example is the man calling out "who elected him" to the proclamation of Charles III, at a ceremony that had as little as possible to do with funerary rites while still dealing with her son's ascension.
The better example is
Often they're being arrested for their own safety, you only have to look at the example of the chip shop owner in Muir of Ord, who posted a video online and now her chippy has a smashed window.
Do you leave the person with the offensive sign there? I can easily see some "have a go hero" deciding to tear the sign to bits and causing a fight to happen.
Whatever your view on those cases, many of these interactions have happened at proclamations and just in public places, well away from the Queen. One shouldn't be threatened with imprisonment for peacefully airing their personal views.
You defend it all like it's one horrific thing that needs to be stopped, and I find that far more distasteful than anything any of these people have said.
You can not say you support free speech but also support the arrest of someone for a "abolish the monarchy, fuck imperialism" sign, or for saying "who elected him".
Is this China or Russia? This sounds insane to me. Meanwhile, the UK ruling class is free to gut the NHS and bleed the population dry and none of them give a shit. The British sense of "decorum" is pure bullshit.
It’s a shame that the UK doesn’t have robust protections for free speech. In the US, you certainly will not be arrested for this. We have Supreme Court precedent preventing it.
In fairness, we didn't vote for the Prime Minister either.
Where was this fella when we needed him in parliament?
I think UK democracy has a much bigger democratic problem than whether there is a symbolic monarch.
Unlike the monarch, the Prime Minister we didn't vote for is a political activist with serious power and a nasty agenda - including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people.
In fairness to the Queen, as far as I know she never asked that we reduce the people's rights and freedoms, and in fairness to the new King, one of the things he is known for is being a climate and environment activist, which was viewed as kooky a couple of decades ago but looks prescient and relevant to the times now.
There's no obligation to protest everything you disagree with, why would you suggest there is? Furthermore, how do you know they _didnt_ protest the PM? The PM may not have been voted for, but a crucial difference is, unlike the monarchy, the position of PM is not handed down by hereditary lineage.
> including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people.
Don't you think perhaps these two events are related? You chastise someone for protesting, whilst bemoaning the right for protest being eroded. A strange contradiction.
No I didn't, someone else did. HN is not one person posting under hundreds of usernames :-)
The funeral hasn't happened yet, Google tells me it's on September 19, 6 days from now.
Coming from the country that has held Julian Assange in a dungeon for the crime of journalism for years at the behest of the United States, this comes as no surprise. And people wonder why, when UK and other "Western" leaders point at Russia and China and cry about "authoritarianism", people with brains and morality are disgusted with their hypocrisy.
We're truly scratching the bottom of the barrel of pro-censorship arguments here. This is parody-grade stuff. "I am for freedom of speech an all, but this person held a rude sign during a massively public political event. Arrest them and drag them through courts!"
In the past, anti-royal protestors used to be hung, drawn, and quartered.
Doesn't take a political science degree to see what's wrong with this law. When cops get to decide what is a justifiably loud protest and what isn't you no longer have the right to protest. Protests are meant to disrupt, if you can't be loud about it then it no longer has its intended effect.
They are meant to convince your fellow citizens of your position.
Being a disruptive $#@t, not only defeats that purpose, it actually causes more people to vote against you.
Moreover, emotionally driven teenagers (or stunted "adults") use these protests as a pubescent venting mechanism to smash business and mistreat adults they encounter, like some narcissistic violent therapy session.
It should absolutely be illegal.
Also impressive the one lady was simply holding a sign. That doesn't sound very noisy to me...
Like sessh. These are people too. Let them have a funeral, you can protest them afterwards.
The public paid for this funeral, and therefor they have every right to participate in it.
They should show some respect, it is a funeral after all. If they wanted a "private funeral" they should pay for one.
This seems obviously false. Try walking into the petagon some time proclaiming "the public paid for this military base and therefor i have every right to participate in it." And see how far that gets you.
Since when? This seems like a misunderstanding of how taxes work. Taxes pay for a lot of things which taxpayers have no right, or even access to.
Then they should grieve in private and at their own expense.
While this isn't at all objective, my feelings on it all started to change when the BBC begun sneaking in pure praise for Charles/monarchy without any balance, having softened us up with the same thing but with the Queen for a few days, knowing no-one would disagree with that. It now feels political.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to pick a side first.
I have no involvement, don't know the facts, haven't followed the discussion. From this thread, I gathered that people are being obnoxious and so they whipped out an ancient law to round them up for. Is selective enforcement good? Probably not. Is it good to stop people from being obnoxious at any funeral? Generally yes. Is the situation GP was posing comparable (random funeral vs. the queen's funeral)? No. Is royalty good? I don't know, I've heard pros (stable face of a country, for foreign relations, without the same person always being in power) and cons (costs).
I'd rather argue about merit and facts than "sides" you're on
...but probably that doesn't fit in a comment anyone is going to read and upvote, so alas.
Sometimes I toy with the idea of having difficult discussions (best example might be nuclear fission energy) in the form of a wiki, where the contents embody the current best known facts, with conclusions logically following from facts. When you change a fact, it cascades and the "thus"es are marked as needing an update. If you don't care for the whole discussion, you can just read the conclusion and find a "because" that you think is wrong somewhere and argue about that. But then, who'd find that enjoyable?
When it comes to government-sponsored situations, free speech is very broad in the United States.
The OP is a good example to point to when people act like the US isn't special for its Constitution.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9
The UK unfortunately doesn't have freedom of speech, it has freedom of expression.
> The woman, 22, was arrested "in connection with a breach of the peace," a Police Scotland spokesperson told NPR, adding that she was formally charged and released, and her case is now pending at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Just to add, you can also be arrested at speakers corner if you upset enough people there and there is "reasonable cause" that they may become violent, despite you speaking peacefully.
This NPR article is false and clearly doesn't understand the laws of the UK.
Can you help me understand that distinction? With a pretty limited understanding of UK law, my assumption would be that freedom of speech would cover any words but maybe not the specific way they're presented, while freedom of expression would cover even if those words were expressed in less polite way.
Notably:
> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Add on top of this the new hate crime laws that disallow 'hate speech' (which includes critique) of 'protected classes', and you don't really have the right to complain. The police also record "non-crime hate incidents" on your permanent record (zero due process, zero ability to remove it), and the police will quite literally come to visit you and "correct your thinking" (yes, they actually say this).
Personally, I really want to see freedom of speech implemented. This of course directly conflicts with the traditions we know and love, so it's unclear where we go from here. It seems as though freedom of speech is coming whether it matches our culture or not, and many British people already behave as though they already have it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part...
Getting rid of their magical fairy kingdom trappings (again) might give the population an impetus to flex some popular sovereignty over their own country. Pair it with the abolition/democratization of the Lords, and they'll finish the revolution that Cromwell spoiled.
Ironically, in the last decade the Lords have a much better track record that the Commons. They applied real scruitiny to the opressive protest bill, the Brexit bill and the bill to deal with unsafe building we discovered in the wake of corporate manslaughter, which was a result of rampant fraud in the construction industry. As a result the lords were threatened with dissolution
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56905882
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54882088
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60032465
And no, I don’t mean it as a joke
If Britain wants to survive the next 100 years, they need to make some brave decisions. Dissolve monarchy and the class system, get back into EU, and hope Scotland will not declare independence.
Also, USA, wtf, why are you flying the flag at half staff? Did you forget what you fought about in 1776?
(edit: Actually I looked it up and apparently it has flown at half staff for foreign leaders a few times in the past. My bad, knee jerk reaction.)
yeah, i thought that was weird too. It was ordered by Joe Biden, he might actually have forgotten what our ancestors fought about in 1776.
Not having our views represented in parliament whilst having our taxes decreased to bail out the British East India Company.
The American revolution was supported by around 30% of the colonists by the time it started. And that was only after the media-owning elites spent years churning out non-stop pieces trying to promote the perspective. Of course the taxes primarily affected those wealthy elites and they knew a revolution would significantly benefit them
Do you know who John Hancock was? It's often said that this author of the largest signature on the Declaration of Independence was of little to know historical relevance. However I think he's extremely relevant. He represented what the real engine behind the revolution: Rich people that owed a lot of debts to the Brits. In fact if you look through the list you'd find that a huge number of the signers owed debt that they would be freed of, come such a revolution. Alexander Hamilton is now so celebrated precisely because he was one of the very few exceptions to this
Because one half of the Special Relationship had their head of state die? If the Canadian PM were assassinated, would you be up in arms over a half-mast due to the War of 1812?
I am equally frustrated with India doing the same. Though we did it for Shinzo Abe so it's fine I guess
I know the UK has a lot of old money but I can't imagine a way in which this could be "dissolved" peacefully.
(Unlike politicians, who will be gone in 4 years or so anyway, media outlets are terrified of upsetting the royal family, who are permanent).
I understand that it is popular among the general public because fairytales and costumes and stuff , but i have to shake my head at how some reporters talk seriously about "peaceful transition of power", when there is no power
I don't think [this is] how power works, specially in a monarchy. Peaceful transition means the power base that has given fealty to Mr. X is now accepting Mr. Y. That is the 'transition'.
Because it is gross to worship a useless, elitist parasite like the Queen.
I guess it's not that unusual though to lower the flag for a few days on the death of a foreign leader. Apparently we went 3 days for Shinzo Abe. Nothing for Gorbachev, though. (Maybe it would have been worth it just to annoy Putin.) Not sure when the last time was we went 11 days or more for a non-US figure.
> In 1979, Monty Python's Life of Brian was considered so controversial it was given an X certificate and banned from some British cinemas.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53441499
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...
"The jury acquitted Martin of inciting a riot and reached no verdict on whether she threatened officers' lives. Her legal team was "elated" when jurors found her guilty only of breaching the peace, punishable by no more than a $500 fine and 30 days in jail, investigator Tony Kennedy recalled.
State law defines breachers of the peace as any disturbers, "dangerous and disorderly persons" or people who utter "menaces or threatening speeches." But prosecutors presented the charge as a "high and aggravated" crime, which carries up to 10 years imprisonment. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
From my own (admittedly uneducated on this topic) perspective, British government doesn't make any sense as it looks like a modern republic from a distance but they still have lords, kings, dukes, and other titles of nobility that seem incompatible with that.
Does the King still have the ability to order people around and pass his own laws?
They act as a head of state in the same way that e.g: Germany has a President.
Noble ranks like Duke and Baron are also completely irrelevant to governance.
Lords _are_ relevant, on the other hand. They form the House of Lords, which plays a role as (simplifying) a check on the power of the House of Commons.
Hereditary Lords (i.e. the noble aristocracy in the UK) have almost no political power. The ninety or so still in the House of Lords are elected by fellow members of the House of Lords. The remainder (600+) of the peers are appointed by the party in power in the commons.
English Civil War. Monarchy has been tool parliament ever since.
A Canadian perspective... Did you know that king has to approve all of Canada's laws? So when Canadians elect their government, and that people-elected govt passes a law, that's not good enough to become law. It has to get Royal Assent from the current king/queen. Canadians even pledge allegiance to the 'King and his heirs' - and that includes Andrew the Pedophile - its part of the citizenship oath. Many Canadian will fight tooth and nail to keep this system intact.
Australia got smart and changed the citizenship oath some time ago. As a result, you no longer have to pledge to a pedophile!!
But that's just domestically. The real pragmatic power is actually in foreign affairs and is way overlooked. A single visit of a British monarch to a regime would basically grant instant validity of their status. Imagine if King Charles III visited the Taliban. Obviously that specific situation is extremely unlikely, but I'd argue that Queen Elizabeth has played a really seminal role in keep some pretty fucked up regimes in power
Up until now, it had been people with, admittedly, rather unpleasant views. Perhaps that is why it had been ignored. But we’re now seeing why ignoring it is dangerous.
The god save the queen stuff is kind of traditional and doesn't mean much. "God save the queen / The fascist regime..." (Sex Pistols) is also kind of traditional and quite popular. No one forces you to sing either but the Pistols did much better in the charts.
A lot of non UK folk seem to have some strange ideas about how it works here. The royals haven't had much power for centuries.
At least we get a figurehead who is generally popular vs say electing a Trump/Clinton and having half the population hate them until they get ejected for someone the other half hates.
Having such an incredibly obsequious national anthem focused on a single person means a great deal to me.
"A lot of non UK folk seem to have some strange ideas about how it works here. The royals haven't had much power for centuries."
I understand this, but what baffles and disgusts me is that you act like they still do and are better than you. It just makes my skin crawl.
The fact that people as scummy and Prince Andrew are considered to be Royalty makes this all the worse.
It is completely different. It is far more sycophantic and servile.