comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 5 minutes ago
I’m in favour of retaining the monarchy because I feel that it’s important to retain some of our heritage and tradition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the buildings, land, coins, museums, jewels and... history books?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the monarchy
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 9 minutes ago
The actual figures have about a 60% approval rate for the monarchy, less than 30% for a republic.
In case anybody is interested. So those clamouring for democracy are actually undemocratic by pushing for abolition...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's about 29% for abolition + whatever % poll as "don't know" (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head).
Having a discussion about the merits of a monarchy in the 21st Century & trying to win arguments and change minds is most certainly not "undemocratic".
Unelected, wealthy & privileged head's of state and figures of influence and power on the other hand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are we including the don't know in this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's statistically relevant for reasons that I'd assumed would be obvious...
If 60% are in favour of the monarchy, then that leaves 40% who are either actively against or unsure; ie, not in favour. That leaves us progressing ever closer to 50/50 and the prospects of majority abolition. And yet, in another thread you said that the majority approval rating rendered discussion of abolition as 'moot', or words to that effect. Clearly that's not true, statistically...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between abolitionists and monarchists, in my experience, tends to boil down between those who don't value tradition and those who do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Tradition' is not self-justifying. All manner of horrors have been (or continue to be) carried out in the name of tradition.
I've nothing against tradition per se - it depends on the specifics. Any traditions found not fit for purpose (ethically, environmentally, economically, socially etc) should be thrown away or adapted. Benign ones that harm no one are perfectly fair game, of course.
The monarchy's role as essentially arms sales representatives (largely to the repressive gulf states) should by itself render them obsolete and not fit for purpose. And that's just one single and rarely discussed function of the institution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the arms deal is your new hot topic, and I have agreed with you on that point. But when it's the elected government putting the royal family in that position, when Charles himself has spoken at his distate for having to do this, I'm not really sure why that should render the monarchy obsolete.
As if that's going to stop arms sales to the Middle East...
Tradition needs to have value. Tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t a good thing for society.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
Tradition needs to have value. Tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t a good thing for society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does have value, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't.
It has value both in our standing on the global scale, and economically.
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
Tradition needs to have value. Tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t a good thing for society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does have value, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't.
It has value both in our standing on the global scale, and economically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And it’s also a source of pride for a significant percentage of the population, so the disapproval of the rest is irrelevant
The difference between abolitionists and monarchists, in my experience, tends to boil down between those who don't value tradition and those who do.
-----
First off, it's not really about valuing tradition IMO. It's about being logical and critical in decision making.
Humanity has progressed a lot in the last few centuries and that comes with a risk that we will continue to stick with what has been working in the past because it worked in the past. A lot of people are stuck in the past, but just because something worked well in the past doesn't mean it will work well today or in the future.
Knowing when to change is the epitome of intelligence, and we might miss the bus on many issues simply because of some sort of nostalgic emotion. I'm no anticapitalist but the signs of end stage capitalism are clear to see. That's not to say we should switch to communism or socialism but it's clear to me that it will be to our detriment in future if the playing ground isn't levelled more, or at least prevent the wealth gap from growing to dangerous levels.
The west is the most at risk of this. Having been so successful then they will more likely stick to what they know and refuse to change whereas the more fluid will adjust and succeed in future.
Secondly, tradition is transitional. In that tradition cannot die, like anything else it just changes over time. If our forefathers had preserved tradition and resisted change, then the tradition we have now would have never existed. When one tradition is overtaken by events it is replaced by another. This has happened throughout history and it's how we arrived where we are. You want to arrest that process and keep things the same as they are at this point in time I stead of allowing it to continue.
By preserving the status quo you are doing a disservice to history. Tradition should be allowed to continue to be dynamic, mature and to change, not preserved.
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
Tradition needs to have value. Tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t a good thing for society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does have value, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't.
It has value both in our standing on the global scale, and economically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And it’s also a source of pride for a significant percentage of the population, so the disapproval of the rest is irrelevant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahahahahahahahahahahaha!
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 9 minutes ago
The actual figures have about a 60% approval rate for the monarchy, less than 30% for a republic.
In case anybody is interested. So those clamouring for democracy are actually undemocratic by pushing for abolition...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's about 29% for abolition + whatever % poll as "don't know" (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head).
Having a discussion about the merits of a monarchy in the 21st Century & trying to win arguments and change minds is most certainly not "undemocratic".
Unelected, wealthy & privileged head's of state and figures of influence and power on the other hand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are we including the don't know in this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's statistically relevant for reasons that I'd assumed would be obvious...
If 60% are in favour of the monarchy, then that leaves 40% who are either actively against or unsure; ie, not in favour. That leaves us progressing ever closer to 50/50 and the prospects of majority abolition. And yet, in another thread you said that the majority approval rating rendered discussion of abolition as 'moot', or words to that effect. Clearly that's not true, statistically...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between abolitionists and monarchists, in my experience, tends to boil down between those who don't value tradition and those who do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Tradition' is not self-justifying. All manner of horrors have been (or continue to be) carried out in the name of tradition.
I've nothing against tradition per se - it depends on the specifics. Any traditions found not fit for purpose (ethically, environmentally, economically, socially etc) should be thrown away or adapted. Benign ones that harm no one are perfectly fair game, of course.
The monarchy's role as essentially arms sales representatives (largely to the repressive gulf states) should by itself render them obsolete and not fit for purpose. And that's just one single and rarely discussed function of the institution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the arms deal is your new hot topic, and I have agreed with you on that point. But when it's the elected government putting the royal family in that position, when Charles himself has spoken at his distate for having to do this, I'm not really sure why that should render the monarchy obsolete.
As if that's going to stop arms sales to the Middle East...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I've obviously never uttered a word about Britain's violent exports around the world on this website before today...
Fine. "I oppose arms sales to repressive states but I carry on doing it anyway".
Brilliant. What a moral hero Charlie is. Keep the monarchy, I've changed my mind!
Charles himself as an individual might be alright - I've no idea (he talks a reasonable games on the environment). My interest isn't in the traits of individuals within the institution (I'm sure many are fairly sound - Harry seems reasonably normal, for instance) but with the role & status of the institution itself and its function in a developed, modern, progressive & democratic society. And for clarity, there are worse institutions & organisations existing within and influencing public life that I'd sooner focus on long before the monarchy.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, of course it is.
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooof bit of whataboutery, but will surely stoke the fires of debate.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good man
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooof bit of whataboutery, but will surely stoke the fires of debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find that abolitionists tend to over-index in that demographic
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
25 years ago, absolutely. But the vast majority have moved on and his approval ratings are far higher than they were previously. His environmentalist attitudes and activities are very much in line with public discourse today, which will further enhance that public support in my opinion.
But even most monarchists will agree that Charles is little more than a stop gap before William
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooof bit of whataboutery, but will surely stoke the fires of debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find that abolitionists tend to over-index in that demographic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy reading debate I have not much education on.
Please continue.
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant the acknowledgement from 'the firm' who may have the ability to change it and not you who doesn't materially aside from argue your point on here.
I believe in the past Chas has talked about a slimmed down operation? As I said they've tried all sorts using PR companies but nothing works. Undermining by their own doesn't help cf Andy.
Like BK I think there are 100s of things better to do but we could all imagine ways to make the 'situation' more progressive (hate the undertone of that expression) and modernise the institution.
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry says hold my beer.
comment by The Gaffer (U22336)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry says hold my beer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he is ginger...
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do
------------------------------------------------------------
So you prefer pegging to protecting the envoirnment?
Each to their own I suppose
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Gaffer (U22336)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry says hold my beer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he is ginger...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And a Hewitt
comment by The Gaffer (U22336)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Gaffer (U22336)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry says hold my beer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he is ginger...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And a Hewitt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as well he wasn't black, eh?
Sign in if you want to comment
A Poll - all in favour, say aye
Page 2 of 4
posted on 11/9/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 5 minutes ago
I’m in favour of retaining the monarchy because I feel that it’s important to retain some of our heritage and tradition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the buildings, land, coins, museums, jewels and... history books?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the monarchy
posted on 11/9/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 9 minutes ago
The actual figures have about a 60% approval rate for the monarchy, less than 30% for a republic.
In case anybody is interested. So those clamouring for democracy are actually undemocratic by pushing for abolition...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's about 29% for abolition + whatever % poll as "don't know" (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head).
Having a discussion about the merits of a monarchy in the 21st Century & trying to win arguments and change minds is most certainly not "undemocratic".
Unelected, wealthy & privileged head's of state and figures of influence and power on the other hand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are we including the don't know in this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's statistically relevant for reasons that I'd assumed would be obvious...
If 60% are in favour of the monarchy, then that leaves 40% who are either actively against or unsure; ie, not in favour. That leaves us progressing ever closer to 50/50 and the prospects of majority abolition. And yet, in another thread you said that the majority approval rating rendered discussion of abolition as 'moot', or words to that effect. Clearly that's not true, statistically...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between abolitionists and monarchists, in my experience, tends to boil down between those who don't value tradition and those who do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Tradition' is not self-justifying. All manner of horrors have been (or continue to be) carried out in the name of tradition.
I've nothing against tradition per se - it depends on the specifics. Any traditions found not fit for purpose (ethically, environmentally, economically, socially etc) should be thrown away or adapted. Benign ones that harm no one are perfectly fair game, of course.
The monarchy's role as essentially arms sales representatives (largely to the repressive gulf states) should by itself render them obsolete and not fit for purpose. And that's just one single and rarely discussed function of the institution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the arms deal is your new hot topic, and I have agreed with you on that point. But when it's the elected government putting the royal family in that position, when Charles himself has spoken at his distate for having to do this, I'm not really sure why that should render the monarchy obsolete.
As if that's going to stop arms sales to the Middle East...
posted on 11/9/22
Tradition needs to have value. Tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t a good thing for society.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
Tradition needs to have value. Tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t a good thing for society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does have value, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't.
It has value both in our standing on the global scale, and economically.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
Tradition needs to have value. Tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t a good thing for society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does have value, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't.
It has value both in our standing on the global scale, and economically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And it’s also a source of pride for a significant percentage of the population, so the disapproval of the rest is irrelevant
posted on 11/9/22
The difference between abolitionists and monarchists, in my experience, tends to boil down between those who don't value tradition and those who do.
-----
First off, it's not really about valuing tradition IMO. It's about being logical and critical in decision making.
Humanity has progressed a lot in the last few centuries and that comes with a risk that we will continue to stick with what has been working in the past because it worked in the past. A lot of people are stuck in the past, but just because something worked well in the past doesn't mean it will work well today or in the future.
Knowing when to change is the epitome of intelligence, and we might miss the bus on many issues simply because of some sort of nostalgic emotion. I'm no anticapitalist but the signs of end stage capitalism are clear to see. That's not to say we should switch to communism or socialism but it's clear to me that it will be to our detriment in future if the playing ground isn't levelled more, or at least prevent the wealth gap from growing to dangerous levels.
The west is the most at risk of this. Having been so successful then they will more likely stick to what they know and refuse to change whereas the more fluid will adjust and succeed in future.
Secondly, tradition is transitional. In that tradition cannot die, like anything else it just changes over time. If our forefathers had preserved tradition and resisted change, then the tradition we have now would have never existed. When one tradition is overtaken by events it is replaced by another. This has happened throughout history and it's how we arrived where we are. You want to arrest that process and keep things the same as they are at this point in time I stead of allowing it to continue.
By preserving the status quo you are doing a disservice to history. Tradition should be allowed to continue to be dynamic, mature and to change, not preserved.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
posted on 11/9/22
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
Tradition needs to have value. Tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t a good thing for society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does have value, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't.
It has value both in our standing on the global scale, and economically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And it’s also a source of pride for a significant percentage of the population, so the disapproval of the rest is irrelevant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahahahahahahahahahahaha!
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 9 minutes ago
The actual figures have about a 60% approval rate for the monarchy, less than 30% for a republic.
In case anybody is interested. So those clamouring for democracy are actually undemocratic by pushing for abolition...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's about 29% for abolition + whatever % poll as "don't know" (I don't know the numbers off the top of my head).
Having a discussion about the merits of a monarchy in the 21st Century & trying to win arguments and change minds is most certainly not "undemocratic".
Unelected, wealthy & privileged head's of state and figures of influence and power on the other hand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are we including the don't know in this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's statistically relevant for reasons that I'd assumed would be obvious...
If 60% are in favour of the monarchy, then that leaves 40% who are either actively against or unsure; ie, not in favour. That leaves us progressing ever closer to 50/50 and the prospects of majority abolition. And yet, in another thread you said that the majority approval rating rendered discussion of abolition as 'moot', or words to that effect. Clearly that's not true, statistically...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between abolitionists and monarchists, in my experience, tends to boil down between those who don't value tradition and those who do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Tradition' is not self-justifying. All manner of horrors have been (or continue to be) carried out in the name of tradition.
I've nothing against tradition per se - it depends on the specifics. Any traditions found not fit for purpose (ethically, environmentally, economically, socially etc) should be thrown away or adapted. Benign ones that harm no one are perfectly fair game, of course.
The monarchy's role as essentially arms sales representatives (largely to the repressive gulf states) should by itself render them obsolete and not fit for purpose. And that's just one single and rarely discussed function of the institution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the arms deal is your new hot topic, and I have agreed with you on that point. But when it's the elected government putting the royal family in that position, when Charles himself has spoken at his distate for having to do this, I'm not really sure why that should render the monarchy obsolete.
As if that's going to stop arms sales to the Middle East...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I've obviously never uttered a word about Britain's violent exports around the world on this website before today...
Fine. "I oppose arms sales to repressive states but I carry on doing it anyway".
Brilliant. What a moral hero Charlie is. Keep the monarchy, I've changed my mind!
Charles himself as an individual might be alright - I've no idea (he talks a reasonable games on the environment). My interest isn't in the traits of individuals within the institution (I'm sure many are fairly sound - Harry seems reasonably normal, for instance) but with the role & status of the institution itself and its function in a developed, modern, progressive & democratic society. And for clarity, there are worse institutions & organisations existing within and influencing public life that I'd sooner focus on long before the monarchy.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, of course it is.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooof bit of whataboutery, but will surely stoke the fires of debate.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, of course it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good man
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooof bit of whataboutery, but will surely stoke the fires of debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find that abolitionists tend to over-index in that demographic
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
25 years ago, absolutely. But the vast majority have moved on and his approval ratings are far higher than they were previously. His environmentalist attitudes and activities are very much in line with public discourse today, which will further enhance that public support in my opinion.
But even most monarchists will agree that Charles is little more than a stop gap before William
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Ghost of 1974 (U9335)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 51 seconds ago
You just keep saying those things without anything to support them.
People taking pride in it says more about how facking stupid people are than it being of actual value to a prosperous and well run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of people take pride in some chap called Mohammed who they claim speaks with sky fairies… is that stupid? Far less tangible than the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooof bit of whataboutery, but will surely stoke the fires of debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find that abolitionists tend to over-index in that demographic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy reading debate I have not much education on.
Please continue.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant the acknowledgement from 'the firm' who may have the ability to change it and not you who doesn't materially aside from argue your point on here.
I believe in the past Chas has talked about a slimmed down operation? As I said they've tried all sorts using PR companies but nothing works. Undermining by their own doesn't help cf Andy.
Like BK I think there are 100s of things better to do but we could all imagine ways to make the 'situation' more progressive (hate the undertone of that expression) and modernise the institution.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry says hold my beer.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by The Gaffer (U22336)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry says hold my beer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he is ginger...
posted on 11/9/22
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do
------------------------------------------------------------
So you prefer pegging to protecting the envoirnment?
Each to their own I suppose
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Gaffer (U22336)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry says hold my beer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he is ginger...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And a Hewitt
posted on 11/9/22
comment by The Gaffer (U22336)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Gaffer (U22336)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
When we're at 50/50 (although I'd argue that as with any referendum, affirmative action should only be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look on Yougov website you will find the inexorable trend towards that position - most recent data 3 months ago. There may be a blip caused by the succession as it raises the profile and potentially opinion though perhaps not in the intended direction?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be the intended direction but it's not close to being 50+% in support of abolition. Until that point there is no democratic reason to remove the monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree but it would take an extraordinary level of ignorance, arrogance or foolishness not to acknowledge it. Having done so there is the choice to either wait for the inevitable or try to proactively change things. There are blips but nothing that has been done (and they absolutely have tried) has materially worked so I guess it is try harder or tick-tock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do acknowledge it, and I think it should be a source of concern for Charles as he ascends the throne.
I actually think approval ratings will go up especially if the Harry / Meghan debacle blows over and Charles uses his position to advocate for the environment which I think he will.
But if they don't, and we get to a stage where 50%+ of a refendum want it gone, I and many other monarchists won't argue it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles is starting off on dodgy grounds as he has some gaffes in his past. A while back the country was shocked when more people voted that the title should go directly to William. Charles is arguably the most despised and disliked royal so he has a lot of work to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry says hold my beer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well he is ginger...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And a Hewitt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as well he wasn't black, eh?
Page 2 of 4