I'd like to know how American fans of the monarchy defend the UK's limits on free speech

[pnwmom]

with regard to the royals.

Every time I see a progressive here defend the monarchy, I'm surprised. Isn't this what the revolutionary war was about -- leaving the monarchy? So why would any progressive defend it?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/queen-elizabeth-britain-monarchy-criticism-protester-arrests-free-speech-uk/

"London — As the U.K. observes an official period of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, a number of arrests of protesters critical of the monarchy at public events in recent days have stoked simmering concerns over free speech in Great Britain.

"In Oxford, England, 45-year-old Symon Hill said he was briefly detained Sunday and then let go by police after shouting "Who elected him?" during a proclamation ceremony for King Charles III. He said he was handcuffed and driven home by police.

"In Edinburgh, a 22-year-old man was arrested after heckling Prince Andrew during the procession of the queen's coffin through the city on Monday and charged with breaching the peace. Another 22-year-old woman was also arrested and charged in Scotland for holding up a sign with a curse word that disparaged imperialism and the monarchy."

A barrister tweeted this:

Link to tweet

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Not much different than here. Remember the woman who shot TFG the bird?

[pnwmom]

2. We wouldn't DEFEND that here. But some DUers are determined to defend the monarchy

and its efforts to limit criticism.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. Who is defending it?

Seems an awfully odd hill to die on.

[BannonsLiver]

4. Probably no one.

[pnwmom]

10. Lots of people here. Just look at any discussion of Meghan Markle

and you'll find some.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

14. Meghan Markle is oppressing free speech?

[pnwmom]

30. No. But in discussions of the monarchy connected to the Sussexes leaving the UK,

a number of DU posters turn out to defend the monarchy.

[Effete Snob]

47. Meghan Markle chose to join that family and the legal system which supports it

As I understand it, Ms. Markle is upset that she was not welcomed by the hereditary owners of the massive historical fortune gained, in part, through the systemic oppression and exploitation of nonwhite people for centuries, despite her earnest desire to become a part of the group protected by the very laws that have you excited.

She can fuck right off with the rest of the royals, as far as I'm concerned.

[Dorian Gray]

71. Lol

I mean... this is how most americans should feel about the royal family. lol

(I don't despise Meghan on this level, but I also don't care for her all that much, either.)

[Effete Snob]

73. It's so bizarre

Her entire existence revolves around the fact that her in-laws don’t like her.

As if that’s some kind of rare or unusual problem.

OMG! Someone married someone who has dreadful family members! Let’s all stop and have a pity party for this insanely wealthy person.

What a crock.

[Dorian Gray]

75. They could quietly do a lot of good

for a lot of non profit work out there, but not sure they have it in them to go quietly and do it. Regardless, Harry was always immature and impetuous. I think that sometimes I resent the attitude that SHE stole him from his family. He's a whole adult male who is capable of making his own decisions. If you're going to resent her, then resent him. Stop infantilizing him.

But outside of that, I don't really give a shit. She obviously likes attention, and I don't care to watch their netflix show or read their people spreads... so... oh well.

[Effete Snob]

23. I find no one specifically defending UK practice concerning speech critical of royals

I don't see why defending a public institution means accepting or condoning everything about that institution.

Whether people like or dislike any particular characters in the ongoing soap opera that is UK royalty is unlikely to have anything to do with whether the UK, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, etc., should change their laws regarding criticism of the monarchies in those countries.

I believe you'll find, for example, that their love of their spouse does not extend to unqualified adoration of everything that spouse does.

So, no, I have not found in "any discussion of Meghan Markle" anyone going off about UK laws concerning critical speech of royalty or, more broadly, other speech restrictions that are common in the UK and other countries concerning royalty, hate speech, religious speech, or another of the many topics about which speech is restricted in quite a large number of countries other than the US.

[pnwmom]

31. But why do any US progressives defend the monarchy? Why aren't we all

supporting the people in the UK -- who do exist -- in ending it?

[Effete Snob]

48. I dunno, why did Markle want to be a part of it?

[Cha]

56. Because she was in Love with

Prince Harry!

And, then the British Tabloids turned her with Gaslit Racist Attacks and the Monarchy didn't defend Her or Harry.

[Effete Snob]

69. Well, she got him

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2023, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Now all of them and their dysfunctional families can fuck right off as far as I’m concerned. When they wonder how they are going to pay their next heating bill, give me a shout.

[Cha]

52. There was.. not the OP..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17515396

[BannonsLiver]

72. Yeah saw that one

She’s been treated horribly by their racist tabloid media culture which functions in much the same way Fox and the others function here when it comes to demonizing people. I was actually in London the week that he announced they were out and you would have thought aliens had landed with the media coverage.

[Cha]

76. Wow.. I can imagine having

seen "Harry and Meghan'.. who I totally support.

From what I've seen the British Tabloids are much worse than in America.. even fux. Harry knows what they did to his Mum.

[Kaleva]

16. Seems that a majority of Brits are fine with the monarchy

[Cha]

54. It does..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17515396

[Effete Snob]

6. I doubt there are people "determined" to defend that particular policy

Do I understand correctly that you oppose each and every foreign government which places limits on speech that would be legal in the United States?

Is that correct?

Because it is a remarkably long list of countries which you are determined to oppose.

[pnwmom]

12. No, but I would oppose any democracy with a monarchy putting limits

on peoples' right to speak out against the monarchy.

[Effete Snob]

24. Just the monarchy?

You are okay with, say, hate speech or blasphemy laws in other countries?

[pnwmom]

26. Why are you trying to change the subject? I'm talking specifically about

limiting speech that criticizes the monarchy. And I can't understand why progressives would support any monarchy.

Can you answer that?

[Effete Snob]

37. No, I can't answer for other people

Whether people in the UK are, or are not, on balance, happy with their legal system is not something that keeps me up at night.

But, to be clear, you do not oppose governments which maintain restrictions on free speech - such as Canada. Your problem is specifically with the many countries which have a monarchy and have rules around what people can say about the monarchy.

One of the notables in that category is Thailand, which arrests people much more directly for speech:

https://www.insider.com/influencers-arrested-thailand-insulting-royal-family-lese-majeste-2022-6

...as opposed to arrests for what we would otherwise be their equivalent of disorderly conduct at funerals.

From reading your OP, I believed the "subject" was how can one support a country which imposes limits on free speech.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

70. Yes, I do. She was not arrested or detained. The government took no action against her.

What did happen is that she was fired by her employer.

She came out okay. She is now on the board of supervisors of Loudoun County, Virginia.

NOV 6, 2019: She Was Fired After Flipping Off Trump. Now She’s A County Supervisor In Virginia

[TigressDem]

5. Is there any way to work with Parliment to get the Monarchy out?

Like could there be a period of time to transition to not having the Monarchy?

If enough of the people want it, has there been any talk of doing it legally vs just protesting about it?

At the moment they are more figureheads than complete and total rulers, if I remember correctly. So there was some sort of change made at one time to limit the power of the monarchy and install Parliament and the Prime Minister who are both elected?

I'd support UK doing it legally, and sure protest laws that don't make sense but in US we do the same and get arrested too. It's called Civil Disobedience.

Of course blacks or indigenous get labeled as "domestic terrorists" for free speech or even just being a non-white in the vicinity of a crime.... so full Democracy isn't on display here either ATM.


Good luck with whatever path you guys choose and whatever works for you.

[BannonsLiver]

7. What makes you think their people want it gone?

Americans have zero say in the matter. I know that's a tough bite for some to take, but it's reality.

[TigressDem]

9. Some people DO if they are displaying "Not my King or Who Elected Him?"

AND they did go as far as creating the Prime Minister role and Parliament, so there may be people who would like the Monarchy to be done. I don't know how many, but it may be something that has been discussed in the UK.

My thought is that IF people are upset about these laws, maybe it's better to find a way to change the laws than to just be mad about them.

WE in the US have a lot of OLD laws on the books that should go away as well. Most of them aren't really enforced much.

I read here on DU once that people can't park in their own driveway due to some old law or housing ordinance that is archaic.

Just a thought.

[BannonsLiver]

15. Of course there are people there who don't like it.

Just like there are people in the US who can’t stand Biden or the federal government for a variety of reasons. But it’s not the majority. Anyway it’s their issue.

[pnwmom]

28. How do you know it's not the majority, since their speech on the subject is limited,

and it's not a topic that's come up for a vote.

[BannonsLiver]

38. LOL

There was a ton of polling done after the queen died. Also polling has been done over the years that show the majority wants to keep it. Now in your view they probably lied for fear of ending up in the tower. 🙄

Anyway good luck with the UK = NK campaign. I’m sure there will be a few takers! 🤣

[Dorian Gray]

74. I lived in the UK...

it's not the majority. Most people accept it as "just the way it is." Some love the royal family (or at least Elizabeth... and the Queen Mum back in the day.)

You'll see less support in Northern Ireland, of course, and Scotland. More separatists. But, the majority everywhere are quite alright with their traditions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. This is why this is a poor thread; our speech is not "limited" on the subject

and yet the OP has given you that impression. The arrests were for the wide "breaching the peace" offence, which can give the police the chance to arrest people if they think unrest will follow what's done in public. There are good reasons to want this law changed, but it's not about the monarchy - it's just that the particular police in these cases decided they wanted to shut the people up, and used it. It could be used for shouting "Fuck Liverpool" in that city by a Man Utd fan.

We know it's not the majority because polls are held, and keeping the monarchy comes out in the majority. There are regional variations (eg it's not so popular in Scotland) eg
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/bmncb6vteb/Republic_Monarchy_221215.pdf
60% keep it (50% in Scotland)
25% abolish it (32% in Scotland)

There's also the continued fascination with the monarchy - in some places, it's as much as it is on DU. The Mail, Sun etc. know it sells papers.

But we can express republican views quite easily. For a few months, my signature on a British political forum was "fuck the monarchy - it's a useless waste of money", after it (the queen and her advisers) did nothing to stop Boris Johnson suspending parliament so it couldn't vote about his Brexit proposals. This did not attract much attention, because it's not that much of an outlier. People know that some would prefer a republic, but most still want to keep a constitutional monarchy. The uselessness of recent British politicians has reinforced that.

Oh, I just checked, and it's your OP. Well, you don't understand the law, and your OP bears little relation to the actual situation in the UK.

[pnwmom]

82. And your reply has little to do with my question, which asked why

AMERICAN progressives would defend the limits on free speech about the monarchy, through the use of the all-purpose "breach of the peace" offense.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. You're trying to make the public order laws about the monarchy, but they're not

The limits on free speech in the UK are not tied to the monarchy. There's no reason to say "this is aimed at fans of the monarchy". You claim it's about defenders of the monarchy on DU - but no one has ever, as far as we can tell, defended the public order laws here on the basis of the monarchy.

Your thread is a red herring. And having started it as a red herring, you then asked "How do you know it's not the majority, since their speech on the subject is limited, and it's not a topic that's come up for a vote". When I replied to that, you've complained I wasn't answering your OP question. If I wanted to answer your OP question, I would have replied to it. You incorrectly think that discussion on the monarchy is limited in the UK, when the reality is that we can discuss it, and say we want it abolished; and that's how we know that the majority of British people still want to keep it.

[pnwmom]

17. I'm not asking for an American say in the matter. I'm just curious

how so-called progressives who are pro-Royal Family justify their position, particularly with the limits the UK puts on speech concerning the monarchy.

[BannonsLiver]

18. I don't particularly care one way or another

So there you go. 🤷?♂️

[TheRealNorth]

51. Hard to say....

If people get locked up for holding signs or speaking out against the crown, I don't think you can say for certain it's something that they want.

[Effete Snob]

8. Canada too. Do you defend Canada?

Don't forget that Canada makes this a crime:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of antisemitism

(2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

-------

Why would any progressive defend Canada, given the restrictions they place on free speech.

[TigressDem]

35. Hate crimes are not the same as don't dis the Monarchy crimes.

So Canada is trying to protect people in general from potentially being targeted and possibly having violence done to them.

When people gather together and promote hatred and as a mob decide someone is the FOCUS of that hatred this creates a potential for out of control behavior people would not engage in without all the feeding hatred into the crowd.

It is against the law in US to INCITE a RIOT which is part of what tRUMP will be facing. It's WORSE that HE did it because he has more influence. And due to the timing and goals it was an insurrection as well.

We allow people to express their opinion about elected officials, but when they cross the line into threatening behavior, they get watched. When it seems like they are ready to enact a plan, they get arrested, hopefully.

How many death threats do you think Biden and Kamela get every day?

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-09-20/threats-members-of-congress

The surge in threats has grown exponentially in recent years.
In 2016, Capitol Police investigated 902 threats, former House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said in a June 2017 letter to the Federal Election Commission.
By 2018, there were 5,206 threats.
By 2020, there were 8,613, according to Capitol Police figures provided to The Times.

In the first three months of 2021, the U.S. Capitol Police recorded 4,135 threats against members of Congress. If that pace continues, total threats this year will double those in 2020.

[Effete Snob]

40. I was addressing restrictions on speech generally

I agree that one can say "this restriction on US First Amendment speech" is unlike some "other restriction on US First Amendment speech."

It's unclear to me whether the OP opposes all foreign governments which maintain restrictions on anything less than US First Amendment speech, or just the UK one relating to royalty (chosen out of a pretty large number of countries which do that).

I said nothing about death threats, which are specifically actions constituting a criminal offense beyond the speech component thereof.

You can walk around shouting "I hate Jews" or whomever else to one's heart's content in the US, and it is perfectly legal, in contrast to Canada, which is a lot closer than the UK.

I'm sure that the idea of arresting people for disorderly conduct at public funerals - which the OP seems enthusiastic about - would get a lot of support here.

[petronius]

64. I was curious about those examples, and my cursory google search suggests that we

have a fair number of laws here in the US pertaining to disruption of funerals and funeral processions. No idea whether they're enforced vigorously or equitably, but the people in the OP link shouting at the queen's procession may have been in some jeopardy here as well.

(Just something to keep in mind when the funeral--or funerals--that I'm sure we're all eagerly anticipating finally arrives... )

[Effete Snob]

66. Westboro Baptist Church made a career of challenging them

The poster had nothing to say about the photographer arrested at Nancy Reagan’s funeral, so it is a highly specific outrage.

[TigressDem]

68. An I am considering the situation with MAGA and this UK aspect.

To me Canada sounds like they are targeting hate speech that is "likely to lead to a breach of the peace" so it is a baseline that allows them to stop large gatherings that spout rhetoric that encourages riots or violence.

It could apply to what we have here in US with these "domestic terrorist" groups that want to get rid of their problems: every non-white person and those whites who support non-white people's rights.

When the rhetoric is of such an inflammatory nature that it promotes violence it should NOT be protected.

Hate anyone you want to. Think what you think. But when you start planning to hurt people because you hate them or destroy people for doing their Democratic duties, voting, counting votes, taking the position you were elected to serve....


I think the second one would include social network platforms, so it might be used to define the behavior of taking your opinion out to the public and then supporting violent resolution against this problem.



For the UK, they could refine that law so people could have their opinions without allowing that to go farther into violence.




https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of antisemitism

(2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[Effete Snob]

11. But why just the UK?

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-insulting-head-of-state-can-land-prison-belgium-denmark-france-germany/

Belgium

Offending the king is a crime under an 1847 law that has a penalty of up to three years in prison. Those aiming lower down the royal family tree only face a maximum of two years in prison.

Flemish nationalists have made multiple attempts to revoke the law, which has only been applied once — a 2007 case of a man sent to prison for accusing King Albert II of sexual crimes against children.

Denmark

Defaming the king or the head of government can cost offenders up to four years in prison, according to Article 115 of the Danish criminal code. And if someone insults the queen, the queen’s mother, or the heir, they can be sent to prison for up to three years.

Greenpeace activists were charged under the law for their actions at a royal dinner at the 2011 Copenhagen COP15 climate summit.

France

France got rid of its law criminalizing offending the president in 2013, but it added the president to the list of state officials receiving special protection from defamation, with a potential fine of €45,000 for offenders.

[pnwmom]

20. I probably hear it more here about the British monarchy, but would feel the same

about progressives supporting any monarchy. It doesn't make much sense to me.

[Effete Snob]

29. How do you feel about Princess Owana Kaʻōhelelani?

...since she, at least, is within a US jurisdiction.

https://www.crownofhawaii.com/

[pnwmom]

61. No opinion. nt

[Effete Snob]

63. Okay, where is your thread about the photographer arrested at Reagan's funeral?

https://apnews.com/article/e0a856331791426f8f2d0464ff7f0d80

A longtime Los Angeles Times photographer was arrested for allegedly refusing to cooperate with police while transmitting photographs of the funeral motorcade of Nancy Reagan.

Deputy Chief David Livingstone of the Simi Valley police says officers were responding to a report of a suspicious vehicle about three-quarters of a mile downhill from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, where the public viewing for the former first lady was being held.

Livingstone says the photographer, 65-year-old Ricardo DeAratanha, refused to identify himself and balked at providing identification, and was arrested for resisting and obstructing officers.

——

Monarchy or speech restrictions don’t bother you in the US?

[TigressDem]

39. As a progressive, I support the people in the country.

If they WANT a Monarchy and it works for them, fine.

If they WANT to change that, I support them in that effort as well.

My only concern would be, is there a legal way to handle it?

It's not up to US to decide for another country, only to support them in their decision.

[TheRealNorth]

53. +1

I am sure the Redhats would love to pass laws to protect the Slobfather.

[NutmegYankee]

13. Monarchy versus Republic 101

Both can be democracies with universal suffrage and civil liberty protections, but in monarchy the "state" is a private matter and the monarch allows their property to be run as a democracy. Now to be fair, virtually every European monarchy would face being dethroned should they go against the Constitutions they are also held to that limits them to basically figureheads.

[luv2fly]

19. How do you know they are progressives?

Versus other flavors that exist in the party?

[pnwmom]

22. I've seen posts here on DU by people who are known to be progressives,

even by some Bernie people who've defended the monarchy.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

32. All Democrats are progressive.

It ain't like a "wing" of our party.

[luv2fly]

34. If only that were so

Compared to the cretins on the other side, yes, but as a label for the entire party, hardly.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

36. Meh.

[luv2fly]

33. Perhaps they are simply "democrats"

And as we are often told, our tent is big.

[TigressDem]

42. DEMs are cats. Many similarities but very independent thinkers.

AND political thought is more on a continuum even within a party.

As independent thinkers we all have ideas of what works and much that we agree on, but everyone has some little space here where we disagree with someone.

While we might be more or less on board with certain aspects of even the farthest left and the most bi-partisan centrist folk, we all have our reasons for what we'd like to see in Democracy. We are also open to hearing what others think usually.

Many in UK had respect for the Monarchy as a figurehead, tradition and limited power so it would be disrespectful to them in my opinion for someone here in the US to always trash the Monarchy. Not my place.

But if people want to change that, I don't think simply having people be upset with the Monarchy solves the problem.

IF it's ONLY that stupid law that offends, get it taken off the books. Go to Parliament and get it out of there.

If they want to remove the Monarchy, same deal. Parliament is the way to do it legally.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

87. Although I haven't seen this myself, I agree that it would be

surprising if a few posters here "who are known to be progressives" were defending monarchy.

OTOH, in general, conservatives and moderates defending monarchy would not be surprising.

The term right-wing was originally applied to traditional conservatives, monarchists, and reactionaries; an extension, extreme right-wing, denotes fascism, Nazism, and racial supremacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

[treestar]

91. and what does "defending" mean

I would doubt there is any post on DU ever defending the idea of a hereditary person having power in a modern government.

"Defending" their existence isn't that evil, as it is rightly up to the British, and they don't have actual political power any more. They are just tradition and the British are quite attached to theirs and it's their business.

"Defending" the Duchess of Sussex is a whole different thing, too, as progressives are opponents of racism.

[Elessar Zappa]

21. I don't "defend" them but

it’s their country and if Brits are ok with it then whatever. I have my own country to worry about.

[pnwmom]

25. But they aren't all okay with it, obviously. The protesters aren't okay with it,

and so they can get arrested.

It's not like the monarchy is being put up for a referendum, so how do you know the Brits are okay with it?

[Elessar Zappa]

27. I believe

opinion polls show that the British public is largely pro-monarchy with younger voters being the most likely to oppose the royals. It’ll be up to them to get rid of the monarchy or change the laws.

[Effete Snob]

41. It's not a free country unless you can heckle at funerals, apparently

Because free speech is all about shouting at dead people being buried.

[pnwmom]

45. If Trump were to die tomorrow, would you seek to justify the arrests of people

who lined the roads to heckle?

[Effete Snob]

46. Why would I do that?

I can't possibly imagine what has gotten you worked up about the fact that many countries have laws against insulting their monarchical rulers.

I had no idea how much you resented the fact that President Obama didn't tell her to fuck right off:



Would you like to discuss speech restrictions in Ukraine, by any chance? Now there's a government we are actively supporting, and correctly so, which goes a lot further than the UK in restricting speech.

[pnwmom]

58. I can't understand why progressives seem determined to defend the British monarchy. nt

[Effete Snob]

79. Heh, we had people on DU pushing Louise Mensch's disinformation

You’ll find all kinds of nonsense at DU.

I was always surprised that there were people here who took Louise Mensch’s obviously insane bullshit for fact and pushed it here.

[Dorian Gray]

85. In this thread

there is at best a lukewarm: "It's a British institution. Let them handle it" sentiment. Not a "LONG LIVE THE KING!" sentiment. I don't see a whole lot of defending the British royal family here.

[treestar]

90. the cops would be expected to do something

to avert a riot. Magats are prone to violence. That will be a very touchy situation. But it won't mean we have no free speech. Only time, place and manner restrictions are allowed, and that could be one. Emotions at a funeral are high to start with.

Nobody is saying one can't criticize Trump. But one would not want to support an all out riot occuring due to his funeral. The cops are trying to deal with that issue.

The British can out and out advocate against the monarchy in publications, or ordinary speeches, or even in a large protest (recall they turned out in the streets to protest Trump when he visited and made that big balloon of him).

Any large group of people protesting anything has some greater risk of public disturbance.

You would then find you had to defend Westboro Baptists as it is a violation of free speech to try to stop them from causing a disturbance.

[treestar]

89. probably the arrests

were not about the critique of the monarchy so much as trying to avoid people getting upset and attacking the critics and starting a brawl.

And it seems they were let go just after they were arrested.

This possibility comes about because the coffin gets a lot more attention than an ordinary person's.

So "getting rid of the monarchy" may not necessarily mean the person who would have been queen would not have had a big deal funeral.

We often thought the Westboro people were doing something disgusting, and it's not much different. Using a funeral, which can involve high emotions, to make a point like that can lead to disruptions.

[TheRealNorth]

55. +1

But I suppose it's better in the UK than Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, MBS would probably throw you in a meat grinder and feed you to his pet tigers.

[greatauntoftriplets]

43. Ever been to Speakers' Corner in London on a Sunday morning?

[pnwmom]

44. So there is a corner where they get to talk? How nice. n/t

[Sympthsical]

49. You confuse dislike of Netflix people with support of monarchy

Just because someone doesn't like one thing doesn't mean automatic like of another.

I dislike them all equally. It's possible.

With us or against us is such Bushian thinking, and yet so rampant on the internet.

And if you think that's the problem with Britain's issues with speech, you have clearly never spent any time in or studying Britain. They have all kinds of speech laws that would never ever fly here - nor should they. Saying an untoward thing towards royals is literally the least of their limits on speech. The absolute least.

But, I guess things aren't important unless the Netflix people are involved, so . . .

Lolls.

[Effete Snob]

50. The OP's problem is not with British speech laws or the monarchy

While these things are mentioned, it is important not to misinterpret the real target of the OP's displeasure - other DU's with different opinions.

The monarchy/speech stuff is secondary to the problem of people on DU who have differing opinions of them. THAT is the real problem.

[Sympthsical]

59. Of course

It's very thinly veiled, "I like Meghan and you don't, and so it follows you must have other bad opinions, too. Now I will make you defend everything about the royals since you so obviously hold these wrong opinions I'm imputing on you."

Which is just . . .

I'm guessing an idle Monday.

(And watching people defend two of the most over-privileged individuals on the globe who wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire will never not cause some light rubbernecking).

[pnwmom]

62. Pretty funny to see a defender of the Royal Family calling the Sussexes over-privileged. nt

[Sympthsical]

77. I'm not a defender of the royal family

Frankly, I think the entire institution should've started packing up a month after Lizzie's funeral.

But it isn't my country. The royal grift is England's problem - not ours. However, the Netflix people have decided to make their grift an American thing.

See the difference?

I don't see the point if an argument requires you to label people things they are clearly not. False foundations make for false assumptions which make for bad faith arguments.

[Dorian Gray]

86. The sussexes ARE over-privileged

and so is the royal family. They all are.

In every single way that counts.

People can dislike all of them. Just because people don't like Meg and Har doesn't mean they LOVE Charles, William, Kate and Andrew.

Or Vice versa.

Personally, I think Meg and Kate are the best of the bunch. I like both of them while I think the rest are a stew of overprivileged shitbums. And yet I see where their relationship with one another and their own spouses is complicated and neither one of them is a hero.

I think in general, you're mistaking a dislike for Harry and Meghan as a defense of the rest of the royal family. Since H&M currently have a netflix show and H will be on 60 Minutes this weekend, they'll suck up a LOT of the national discourse here in the USA.

There doesn't have to be a good guy or a bad guy. They can all be over-privileged sods.

[pnwmom]

60. No, you can't speak for me on that. You keep changing the subject

instead of explaining why any progressive would defend the British monarchy. There is nothing progressive about a monarchy.

[Effete Snob]

65. You just proved the point

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2023, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Your principal issue is not with any laws in the UK. Your gripe is with these supposed “monarchy supporting progressives” who do not share you opinion about a woman who wanted to be one of them and did not feel sufficiently accepted by a hereditary and this inescapably racist institution.

Accordingly, you deem any comparative discussion of other countries speech laws or monarchies to be “changing the subject” because you want to complain that there are people on DU who do not agree with you, thus making them insufficiently progressive.

I have news for you. Many progressives support restrictions on various kinds of speech. If you want to bring back tobacco advertising, that’s up to you, but it at least doesn’t require a trip to another country.

[48656c6c6f20]

57. I don't know about supporting the monarchy but

You could say..

slobbering
as in drooling
as in slavering
as in raving

drooling
slavering
gushing
gushy
sickening
oily
oleaginous
soapy
hagiographic
adulatory
unctuous
cloying
effusive
uninhibited
fulsome
hypocritical
mushy
hagiographical
sanctimonious
unreserved
unrestrained
demonstrative
ingratiating
insincere
backhanded
feigned
winning
profuse
copious
endearing
mealymouthed
two-faced
winsome
unrestrained
artificial
disarming
lavish
extravagant
abundant
left-handed

[Dorian Gray]

67. I am not defending the royal family

bc I despise what royalty stands for. But I think some people enjoy watching them the same reason they would any celebrity. The glamour. The pageantry. The gossip. Etc. I think you can enjoy it on one level but that fandom may not be a profound acceptance of monarchist way of life.


(Sometimes i like to see the pictures of pretty dresses, but I think the royal family is dumb.)

[Texasgal]

78. In the grand scheme of things

Who cares?

[Hekate]

80. I am *much* more concerned about democracy at home in the US...

The Brits are grown-ups who can work out their own government.

As to someone’s claim here tonight of “being Irish” with apparently a white-hot hatred of the British who oppressed Ireland “for 1,000 years,” I myself have an Irish face and an Irish name and a great love of the music. Indeed I do.

But something about The Troubles in Ireland finally got to me, and I realized that something in that culture is so toxic that if they don’t have the British to fight in person they’ll murder each other over being Protestant or Catholic. Gee, sounds about like frickin home over here with the 2nd Amendment.

I finally came back around to the truth that I am an American mongrel (as white nationalists in Europe always called us anyway when preaching about blood & soil) and that the first of my ancestors to arrive was British — an English Dissenter who sailed out of Leyden, Holland about 1620. The Irish arrived quite a bit later and populated my mother’s line. There’s evidence on my Dad’s side of some German and French — but also that Irish name and face.

And I decided not to carry hatred like that mentioned by the other poster. At all. My ancestors left and they kept on going and changed religions as they pleased and married who they pleased. And I choose not to carry what they all left behind. Like I said, we have created enough troubles of our own to be going on with in America.

PS: ah yes, tonight’s DU brawl started with Meghan Markel and Harry Windsor. Well, may I point out, they also left. And like many another well-born second son, he has come to America to start over. Grand old tradition, that.

[whistler162]

84. Every time I see some American

start a thread about the British Monarchy I wonder why the OP is so enamored by the monarchy! If they weren't, why care what others think about a system of government they have no control over.

[treestar]

88. The problem would not be the monarchy

but whatever laws allowed those arrests. The monarch would not have had any say in the passing of those laws.

[brooklynite]

92. The Revolutionary War had little to do with Royal's per se.

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2023, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)

It had to do with a lack of voice in decisions made by the King AND Parliament. Britain today is a free democracy (with a monarchy) and can have whatever speech laws it chooses to have.

[pnwmom]

93. King George III was despised by the American revolutionaries and he wasn't just a figurehead.

While the reigns of George I and II had been marked by a royal detachment from the administration of American colonies, King George III asserted his claim on the colonies strenuously. The king saw the relationship of Britain and America as that of a parent to a child. A disobedient child, of course, must be punished.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/adams-king-george-III/