>British anti-monarchists said on Sunday that they planned to protest during the coronation of King Charles in May, saying the ceremony was “a slap in the face” for most people struggling with high inflation. >Campaign group Republic said it had been in contact with London’s police force about its plans to hold a peaceful demonstration in Parliament Square, which is overlooked by Westminster Abbey where British monarchs are crowned. >“The coronation is a celebration of hereditary power and privilege, it has no place in a modern society,” Graham Smith, Republic’s chief executive, said. >“At a cost of tens of millions of pounds, this pointless piece of theatre is a slap in the face for millions of people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.” >Buckingham Palace said on Saturday that the coronation would be celebrated with processions, a concert at Windsor Castle, street parties, light shows and community volunteering.


> Buckingham Palace said on Saturday that the coronation would be celebrated with […] community volunteering. brb going to help out at the local food bank for good ol’ King Charles


I think you're a few centuries late for that buddy. Edit: it said George, lol.


Or he's from the future..


Safe to say the anti-monarchists didn't get their way


Nobody mention the Cromwell II decade that preceded new George's reign.


Did cromwell.2 copy the same "not a monarchy but my kids get to wear the cool hat next" pattern?


Good ol' Bloody Harry


Centuries? George was king through WW2 and into the 50s…


One of the Georges in particular looms large for Americans.


Americans are generally unconcerned with history, which is sad. Yours, An American with a degree in history


Yeah, the colonizers got a bit upset with him after he tried to give all the land west of the Apps to the Native Americans. Then there was the attempt to abolish slavery in the colonies. What a Bastard.


>I think you're a few centuries late for that buddy. > >Edit: it said George, lol. Didn't the most recent King George die in the '50s?


Yep. George VI


I just got lost. Where does it say "George"?


They should install battery fed air raid sirens all across the city. Would completely ruin the mood. Good luck finding them in time.


Eh guessing from those extinction Rebellion folks, that's just asking people to put up King Charles pictures just to troll them back


The police is arresting people for simply holding signs, happened just yesterday in Bolton. They're going to start shooting at that..


Set them today.


They can just bust out traditional WWII-1970's era air raid sirens. Or a bunch of Vuvuzela's like they did during the Brazilian World Cup.


South African**


In America, in the 90s, they used to sell these anti-rape alarm things marketed at women: you’d pull the tab and it won’t stop emitting a sound like a fire alarm until you replace it. (They mostly were flung into libraries during finals week, hence Radio Shack going out of business.) Anyways, if you have similar technologies in your country they could be leveraged in a similar manner, though I guess due to the IRA it’s always a bit less funny when some strange electronic device starts singing it’s siren song.


There's a simple solution to all of this: Let them keep everything they have including their titles etc just stop paying them. They then stay a tourist attraction and cost nothing, they have more than enough money to fund themselves and their palaces.


Because you'd keep all the disadvantages of unearned privilege without any of the benefits of a working royal family whose job is to do what they are told by the Government to advance national interests. Imagine if all the splendour of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle were for the private benefit of one family, and could no longer be used to host state banquets for visiting US Presidents, tea parties for war widows and charity workers, investitures for government servants and members of the military, etc. Imagine if instead of having to travel round the country visiting hospitals and military bases and opening community centres every day, the royal family just lived like Harry and Meghan in Montecito.


Then the government would have to pay them way more money in rent from the different land they are using that belong to the King personally. The monarchy is paid ~100 million / year. But the crown estate makes 3 time that much in profit and it goes directly to the government in exchange for that pay due to an old deal made centuries ago. That's why nobody serious wants to stop funding the monarchy, unless you also take their property when tearing that deal up it's a great one for the English taxpayer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate EDIT: sure there is the "abolish the monarchy and seize their property" option but that would literally be a revolution (maybe peaceful but still), in no way something as simple as just "change the deal".


>that belong to the King personally. The Crown Estate doesn't belong to the King personally, it belongs to the corporation sole (which is a legal construction that so happens to be legally the same person as the King). The Windsors also have plenty of personal property (Balmoral, Sandringham, etc.) but the Crown Estate is... something else. If Parliament were to dissolve the monarchy, there's a reasonable argument that Parliament would keep the Crown Estate (or at least have a right to do so, whether or not it would be practical or politically viable is another issue).


Lol, ‘their’ property.


No the Crown Estate belongs to the state, the George's were armwrestled into signing it over as the were so irresponsible with money there was a good chance one would lose it in a game of cards. And no important government buildings are part of it, anyway.


Well why don't we take their property then? Simple solution that


Or, just like, take the property. There's not much they could do about it realistically. Laws are what the government makes them. Pass a law that all royal lands are now public and poof, gone. Hell, the Monarchs basically did the same thing originally. Better yet, the royals should be paying the British people back for all they took over the years.


Funnily enough, Charles already deliberately chopped the ceremony down to something more threadbare. I suspect that they'd complain if it was held at an Aldi's and performed with a dented tin of peas. The complaint has nothing to do with the ceremony - that's just to make it "newsworthy". It has everything to do with them being - you guessed it - anti-monarchists. It's also not for the royal family. If asked if they wanted a ceremony I'll bet you that they're probably say No, but it's expected. It's for the people in the country who do want a monarchy. Which based on platinum jubilee celebrations and the queue to see QEII after her death is most of them.


>Which based on platinum jubilee celebrations and the queue to see QEII after her death is most of them. If only there was a system that allowed the people to express their desire for who should be head of state.


Women in lakes lobbing daggers at people?


Watery tarts even?


Moistened bints in ponds.


farcical aquatic ceremony


Haven’t you heard, the system is you check to see how long the queue to see the coffin is. That’s how you run a democracy.


LMAO you think the royals are long suffering humble people?


I heard Charles was expected to place a piece of paper in the rubbish basket all on his own. It's bloody barbaric.


Yes, a queue of 250,000 people equates to most of the 67,330,000 population of the UK. That's not even 3% of the population of London and Londoners love standing in queues for hours, it's practically a city-wide hobby.


He hasn’t been coronated yet?


The coronations of British monarchs are usually a year after the death of previous monarch because of mourning period and planning. But you will notice the coronation since it’s planned to be pretty big event even if not as big as Elizabeth II’s.


My God, how has the Realm survived without a legitimate monarch?


It’s not quite as simple as that. The Crown travels faster than the speed of light, transferring immediately on death. The new monarch is confirmed by the Succession Council a few days later, upon which they officially become the monarch. The coronation is just the event where they publicly commit to the role.


I know. It was a joke.


Take a look at it at the moment, not very well


I got 1 day off to mourn my grandparents why do they get a year


> are usually a year after the death of previous monarch because of mourning period and planning There are no business like royal and show businesses




No she was a prime minister


I thought he's Captain Slow.


My first thought too


He was declared king in the same statement informed the death of E2. However since there isn’t any contestant, he can plan is official coronation in a warmer months, further away from the funeral procession. It was the same for his mother, declared Queen in Fev, officially crowned in juin.


Well they’d be real shitty anti-monarchists if they didn’t plan to protest haha


So the government are just going to pull out their Pre-Crime units again I guess, like before the Olympics and Royal Weddings....


The UK is indeed steadily outlawing protest, using the extinction rebellion as a justification. "They disrupt buses, how dare they" But as per the article, this group is in contact with the police and will likely manage getting a permit. Allowing protests only under approved permit has been modern society's degradation of our power, that is true.


They were at it long before extinction rebellion. Right off the top of my head Thatcher outlawed certain types of industrial action. Then Tony Blair outlawed demonstrations in key areas of London, and brought in the (IMO) intentionally abusable anti terror laws. I don't remember a single case of laws increasing our rights in that area. Inch by inch the country moves closer to totalitarianism.


I lived in the UK only for 4 years, so your history is helpful. Same trajectory in my home country Canada. G20 about 10 years ago led to mass detention of thousands of Canadians, put in cages, like it's no big deal.


What do I have to Google to read more about that? It's the first time I'm hearing it. (or I'm not remembering the incident)


Since it was quite a while ago I'd have to dig into the archives, but here's one: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g20-related-mass-arrests-unique-in-canadian-history/article4323163/ But it eventually led to a class action law suit which gives us a glimpse into the event with modern articles like: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/g20-toronto-police-regret-1.5767958 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/06/toronto-g20-summit-police-lawsuit-civil-rights-abuses https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g20-related-mass-arrests-unique-in-canadian-history/article4323163/ Here's a reference to the cages themselves: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/g20/2010/06/25/man_arrested_and_left_in_wire_cage_under_new_g20_law.html I personally witnessed a neighbour, a young women, be dragged from her home with police helicopters swirling and SWAT like police, she was in her pajamas and was arrested for a pre-crime, she was not given any charge, just detained, because they said she was going to participate in the protests. Coincidentally, the black bloc (face-covered goons) who smashed a few windows to justify the mass detention were likely police themselves, as a I also attended another protest a few years earlier where they got caught doing exactly this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebec-police-admit-they-went-undercover-at-montebello-protest-1.656171


Wow, as a Canadian that's disgusting.


A Quebec cop told me, after a few beers, that he and others masked up and operated as "agents provocateurs." If they are peacefully protesting, he explained, our hands are tied. But, one punch, one bottle thrown and the game changes." Then he grinned.


Yepp, Quebec Police had to admit it when labour leaders noticed some of the "provacateurs" had the exact same boots as the cops dragging them away. "These guys are cops!". I'll never forget it. Good ol labour leaders. Back when we protested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAwNrWauca0 "He never had intention to use that rock". lol Absolutely maddening that we let our rights get taken away like this. (Then again, only a few months ago Ontario threatened a general strike and it worked, so we still got it in us if we need to, one day, we need to!)


Thanks for refreshing my memory about Montebello. Beer cop was talking about the 3rd Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in 2001, so nothing new with these guys. SQ guy was able to say the no intent line with a straight face. Fevk.


Wow that's a way more detailed answer than I expected. I appreciate the effort, thanks a lot. I'll look through it once I get home!


Jeez, UK & Canada fearing fascism?... As a US citizen, I'm getting even more worried...


Even America isn't immune to that. We just had mass arrests along the border before the president came to visit. Of course that's the same state where the governor rounds up migrants and refugees and drops them outside the vice president's house in freezing temperatures


The way the law stands right now, a general strike is illegal. Thatcher outlawed the biggest bargaining chip workers have.


When they 'reformed' the policing act in 2021 they re-wrote it so that a disruptive protest could be defined even if it was just one person. And if you're wondering if that had anything to do with the fact that there used to be a guy who sat near Parliament with a loudspeaker and decried the crimes of the Tory party, well their official line is that it doesn't. Weird coincidence that they arrested him immediately after changing the law though.


For those who don't know his name was Brian Haw. He began protesting against the economic sanctions on Iraq in June 2001 and died of cancer in 2011, just a few days past the tenth anniversary of the start of his protest.


Its very interesting because we see this happening in the UK as people protest for important issues, but in the US we have kept out right to protest (mostly due to extreme violence and massively outnumbering enforcement) yet protest all the wrong stuff. Also its interesting to compare the G20 Toronto event to the WTO Seattle protests.


If it weren’t for the monarchy, the tabloid papers might go out of business.


There are plenty of A, B and C level UK celebrities with all kinds of shenanigans happening.


Come come now, there’s always the French


The title = yup, that's what they be doin'. It's in the name.


Seriously, /r/soundsaboutright


"Bears to shit in woods"


Just give the protestors some cake and all should be well


Depends on what kind of cake really




3½ months to go and I'm already sick to the back teeth with coverage of this pantomime. Time for a new filter.


Any time the Royal Family have a shindig, the facade of the UK being anything but a modern serfdom slips off.


Sounds like a perfect time to do it


Isn't charles going to die of old age in like 4 days though


I am surprised he has lasted for so long being a believer of homeopathy over real healthcare.


Oh, I’m sure he gets real healthcare when needed.


His mom and dad got into theirs 90s, so Chuck probably has a good ~20 years in him.


The fluid retention in his hands paints a different picture.


My guess is that he will probably die a lot earlier then Elizabeth (He's a male, who on average live shorter lives and he seems to have noticeable problems like fluid retention) but I feel like he will still live for a long while especially considering he was/is quite active and apart from his hands he seems pretty healthy.


I'd agree but the man has had [fucking frankfurter](https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/hbz-prince-charles-1969-gettyimages-558644821-1567097488.jpg?crop=1xw:1xh;center,top&resize=480:*) [fingers forever](https://www.sheknows.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/prince-charles-princess-diana-photos21.jpg?w=748). They do look *especially* plump these days though.


He's only 70?


Yeah, 74 exactly


Bruh, he looks waaaay older


I mean his parents are close cousins and his wife Camilla is also close cousin. At least Harry and William were spared from Charles ears.


What the best possible healthcare gets you


Apollo is looking in your direction and considering the dodgeball in his hands


Could they turn the royal properties in to national parks? And visiting the queens castle would be like visiting Graceland?


15 out of 17 royal residences are public property, including the ones tourists care about like Buckingham or Windsor.


A chunk of them already are. The Royals don't actually own much of the land that has their name on it. George IV sold it to the British Government after drinking all his money away.


And yet they're worth billions. Strange.


On paper, the Queen was worth around £500mn, and Charles got an exemption on a £200mn tax bill. But that's just on paper. I'm sure they're worth more.


Charles has a personal wealth of 600 million pounds. If you count the estates and various castles he inherited, he is worth billions.


Yeah, that's including Balmoral and Sandringham estates. He's still not a billionaire on paper, unless the BRF is hiding something. The Crown Estates that Charles inherits in right of the Crown are public property. He cannot sell or modify them.


Who owns the royal art collection?


>Officially, the Queen holds it in trust for the nation, and her successors. Employees of the Royal Collection, however, routinely refer to it as a private collection. I asked for clarification of this from a Royal Collection spokeswoman. "The Royal Collection has been formed from the private collections of monarchs over 500 years," she says. "It is held in trust by the Queen as sovereign, however, not as a private individual." >The public, then, is a "stakeholder" in the collection, in some sense. Most of it, after all, was acquired with our money. Yet public access is extremely limited, and even where granted, rendered beyond the grasp of most by those ticket prices.


They do claim all lease fees on properties that are free for the public to go too.


Who does?


This may be an unpopular opinion but I do think Harry has put a huge blow on the monarchy. All we see are people saying he overshares and its a vanity project, but repetition is absolutely the key towards convincing people. People hear it from Harry all around the world of how problematic the monarchy is. They're also hearing it through other outlets because of the economy. Those two together makes for an even more impactful experience. Like with advertising. You may hate that Popeyes has an ad for their chicken. But should your friend mention a special deal, something you also saw on TV, that idea becomes very much more interesting.


I know no king but the King in the North, whose name is Stark






Good luck with that. We have very little true freedom of speech on this subject. For example, some republicans who had intended to quietly protest during the Queen’s platinum jubilee were arrested. I don’t think they were ever charged: just held for several hours. A guy who had the temerity to say “who elected him” in Oxford when the accession of Charles was announced was arrested and charged. Later the charges were dropped.


Unlawful detentions like this should be challenged in court. The European Court of Human Rights still can enact judgments on the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom trying to dodge ECHR judgments related to freedom of expression can also become a significant headline for north american media outlets to talk about.


I just find it weird how obsessed Americas are with the royal family


reading these comments imagine if Americans cared this much about workers rights or basic health care


That would require critical thinking skills and the ability to focus and ponder upon one subject for a long period of time….both of which are in short supply among most people here.


This has nothing to do with Americans and yet you still bring it back to them. Weird.


A portion of Americans have obsessions with reality TV and reality stars, and that's basically what the Royal Family is to Americans lol. They're appealing to people who, for whatever reason, love gossip.


>reality stars, and that's basically what the Royal Family is to Americans How could a modern Britton consider them anything but state funded Kardashians?


I don't find them up to the high dramatic standards that were set by Jerry Springer. Really rather boring.


Idk why modern civilizations still hold on to monarchy. It's so dated. No one believes the king is God's emissary anymore. There is no more "divine right." It's time they stepped aside for good. Even a symbolic position is too much. There's nothing special about these people. Celebrity worship is embarrassing.


I’m American and don’t fully understand the peerage system, but what about the 800 or so hereditary titles and their positions in Parliament? The ‘problem’ doesn’t seem to stop with just the King and his family.


Divine right hasn't really been a thing since Magna Carta. Certainly not since the restoration. ​ These days they serve to separate head of state from politics, act as big soft power players. Remember how many world leaders dropped their plans for QEII funeral.




The garter cape is pretty sweet.


That's the cape's property, not the wearer's


Who’s the head of the Church of England?


People often misunderstand divine right. It's a belief that the King has this throne by the will of God - but what they forget to mention is that God can just as easily take that throne away from him for bad behaviour. Going right back to King Saul in the Bible.


This is very interesting discussion in the Bible. The thing is that it's the people themselves who wanted a king, a political structure similar to their neighbors. Here's what Samuel 1, Chapter 8:4 said: >One day the nation's leaders came to Samuel at Ramah and said, “You are an old man. You set a good example for your sons, but they haven't followed it. Now we want a king to be our leader, just like all the other nations. Choose one for us!” >Samuel was upset to hear the leaders say they wanted a king, so he prayed about it. The Lord answered: "Samuel, do everything they want you to do. I am really the one they have rejected as their king. Ever since the day I rescued my people from Egypt, they have turned from me to worship idols. Now they are turning away from you. Do everything they ask, but warn them and tell them how a king will treat them." >Samuel told the people who were asking for a king what the Lord had said: If you have a king, this is how he will treat you. He will force your sons to join his army. Some of them will ride in his chariots, some will serve in the cavalry, and others will run ahead of his own chariot. Some of them will be officers in charge of 1,000 soldiers, and others will be in charge of 50. Still others will have to farm the king's land and harvest his crops, or make weapons and parts for his chariots. Your daughters will have to make perfume or do his cooking and baking. The king will take your best fields, as well as your vineyards, and olive orchards and give them to his own officials. He will also take a tenth of your grain and grapes and give it to his officers and officials. >The king will take your slaves and your best young men and your donkeys and make them do his work. He will also take a tenth of your sheep and goats. **You will become the king's slaves, and you will finally cry out for the Lord to save you from the king you wanted. But the Lord won't answer your prayers.** >**The people would not listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want to be like other nations. We want a king to rule us and lead us in battle.”** >Samuel listened to them and then told the Lord exactly what they had said. “Do what they want,” the Lord answered. “Give them a king.” Samuel told the people to go back to their homes. 1 Samuel 8:4‭-‬22 CEV


Monarchies continue to exist not because any civilization is necessarily holding on to them, rather most monarchies are the ones holding onto modern societies and they manage to hold on because where it comes to many modern democracies monarchies have become so neutered that their not worth the constitutional upheaval of getting rid of them; these aren't absolute monarchies anymore. Alot are still corrupt but if you want to fight corruption you'd have better results with less problems fighting corruption of elected officials than ones you can't constitutionally replace. And if you want to constitutionally replace these institutions then history shows that the vast majority of deposed monarchies occur from major societal upheavals arising from direct economic policy or side affects of far reaching foreign policy like world wars than leak into the economic side that both of which these days are perpetuated by corporations and politicians rather than royals. The reality is that unless something is causing major problems like an inflamed appendix then no one is going to bother addressing it. I'm not saying that's right but that's the way of the world, the vast majority of the way humanity has and continues to be governed is overwhelmingly reactive, not proactive and the few constitutional monarchies left in the world don't rock the boat enough for societies to react against.


Exactly, the UK monarchy - which is currently mostly a brand ambassador/team of mascots, historical re-enactment actors, and jewelry models - would be more difficult to untangle from the nation than the effort to keep them.


Plus if you want to decouple them you need to ensure that you do it when a competent and less corrupt government is in power because you're asking them to create a Constitution.


State sponsored traditional Kardashians.


I mean look at the countries with a constitutional monarchy. UK, Holland, Norway etc. Why would we change our systems when we live in some of the best countries in the world? I don't see why having a president would improve our lives in any way.


Holland is a country?


For multiple reasons. One of them is historical. In the Netherlands, for example, the royal house has played a major role in multiple wars and hardships. Not only by tying and rallying the people together, but also by providing royals who became excellent generals. So I would disagree, there is something special about the Dutch royal house. They have generally behaved well and have been a very positive influence on our country. Moreover, with a fairly instable and volatile parliament, the royal house is a stable and valuable element in society. And yes, the idea of God's representative was indeed tied to this, but there are so many other reasons that this particular reason can easily be discarded.


>They have generally behaved well Mate. Really? Name a Dutch monarch since Willem II and I'll name you a scandal. Corruption, coverups, peddling around faith healers, Nazi history, misuse of their positions. Bernhard in particular basically hopped from scandal to scandal.


Very traditional nepotism.


They're just cosplaying as kings and queens. They expect real money to do it though .




>He's the sort of person who cheats on his wife, gets found out, and just carries on anyway. Those sorts of people can and do get elected all the time.


and those countries that dont have a royal family still celebrity worship... looking at you America.. they hang on the word of singers and actors as the font of all knowledge.


Pretty gross behavior imo


The crown is basically a government sponsored celebrity. The royal family makes the UK government and economy billions.




To be fair France has the advantage of not being British


If anything the palace of Versailles as a common tourist destination lends evidence to the argument that the ostentatiousness and tradition of politically impotent monarchy is good for tourism.


The French are also on their 5th republic. The 4th went down because the army was in open rebellion and the politicians had to dig out Charles De Gaulle from retirement to save their asses.


I doubt it’s more than a handful of people that go to the UK just to see the king or formally the queen. And I think it be a pretty safe, bet that those same tourism dollars that the country makes would be much higher if they were allowed to actually go into the places where the monarchy used to live.


They can't continue to make you billions as celebrities alone? Why not write them out of law and keep them on as some kind of "reality tv show stars" on a show called: EX-Royal.


Because our entire country was literally built around the monarchy, it would cost a lot and be a hassle to change it, and no-one can agree on what the replacement would be.


Relatively cheap PR and symbol of national unity


I thought we were called republicans?


Versailles is a tourist attraction and France doesn’t have a monarchy


Ghosts don't count?


So it costs a lot of money to put something like this on, is it offset by tourism gains or was that more applicable to the Queen? I was in London for the diamond jubilee by accident, and the tourism was staggering.


I would say so, I'll be visiting from Canada. We'll be staying for 17 days, and traveling to at least 5 different regions in England. It's not cheap. It'll be a helluva vacation tho!!! We're really looking forward to it!


We’re about to find out. I have a feeling this dude won’t attract as much attention.


They should have a tea party instead. /s


Cavaliers vs Roundheads II: This time it’s personal.


Damn all 5 of them?


That man had the chance to be named King Arthur and he passed on the opportunity, no wonder people are protesting.




Yeah the last time he was shot at he really shat his pants! Oh no actually he stood there and fiddled with his cufflinks.


He's not crowned yet? How long has it been since QE2 died? Also yes, protest away. It's simply inexcusable for the upper crust to be partying away while a lot of people are tightening their belts.




There are millions of issues in Britain which can be solved in Parliament, and they think removing the monarch would automatically solve them. If they knew Presidents rely on a salary, visit other countries via airplanes, and have to stay in fancy presidential palaces. Plus, the office of President has to be a politician, whereas a monarch is politically neutral. For example, Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are in fact a parliamentary constitutional monarchies but are democratic socialist, able to make the living standards the highest in the world and have access to free healthcare. All it took were acts of parliament. Britain can do the same without going through the hassle of hoping removing a monarch would solve every issue.


Monarchs are absolutely NOT politically neutral. The monarchy itself is a highly conservative structure and those who hold the throne defend that structure as an integral aspect of their position.


You say this, but Charles III is a proponent of many progressive values. He has very progressive views of urban planning that conflict the Conservative norm, as well as on Climate Change. One of his first crisis as monarch was Sunak blocking him from attending COP26. Even then, what political alignment the monarchy does or does not have is an entirely seperate conversation from their apolitical nature. **All** Royal Prerogative is handed to the Prime Minister and their cabinet, and the Monarchy has remained infamously apolitical in political processes. The last interfering monarch was Edward VIII, who did not last long in the position.


> whereas a monarch is politically neutral. It's not though, is it. It's an extremely conservative institution.


People that are against the monarchy don't think that getting rid of it will solve all problems and I've never heard someone claim that, I suspect you haven't either.


Reddit cope


I support this. The British Monarchy is not necessary and does nothing of value by living luxuriously off the taxpayers. There is 0 reason to continue it.


How about... the British public want to continue it? Everyone is pro Democracy until they are on the losing side.


If you don’t protest then, when would you?


Anti-monarchists? The term is republican.


The death of the Queen marked the end of my support for this institution. It’s done… Let it end.


Having a monarchy in 2023 is just embarrassing


So many countries have them. Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Thailand, Saudi Arabia. Just to name a few.


Saudi Arabia and Thailand are not very fortunate examples.


Neither are the other, even if they do have some admirable sides. It's still old dictators and unrightful rulers sitting on top of populations that don't vote about having them there.


That doesn't make it better.


Yes and it’s embarrassing


If people want to keep it, then so be it.


I thought Harry and Megan weren’t invited.


Will there be chicken?


Gotta do something with your bank holiday.


Anti-monarchism? What a ridiculous notion.


I am entirely neutral on the monarchy, but whatever they take from me, an average citizen, is substantially less than whatever the fuck a tory government has done in the past 12 years to defecate over my cost of living. I just couldn't give a fuck about them if I tried, regardless of what whiney-child harry has to say.




Protesting 1000 years of British history... Good luck lol


*rolls eyes* I can’t wait to go through this thread and hear all the great reasons why random American redditors insist we should ditch our monarchy. This will basically be a tiny amount of questionably sane people waving placards somewhere. I’ll look forward to reading about the many ‘hundreds’ of people that bother to protest in the guardian while millions of the rest of us have street parties and/or crack on with the rest of our lives.