RayC

As usual you make no attempt to address the issue; just the usual retort that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your narrow-minded, insular, know-your-place version of the UK is anti-British. Sad.

BBC News - Coronation: Met expresses 'regret' over arresting six anti-monarchy protesters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65527007

Yes it would. It would also coincidentally prove that your "uncertainty" that the UK monarch was 'above the law' was unfounded. As I say, no doubt, purely coincidental.

No need to go to the trouble of searching for it yourself. Confirmation can be found in the link which I posted earlier????

That is certainly not proven. Would tourists cease to go to (former) UK palaces if the Monarchy was abolished? The number of tourists visiting the châteaus of France suggests otherwise. A brand is an intangible asset and is only worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it. The 'Woolworths' brand name was probably worth millions in its' heyday. There is nothing in this link that suggests that the institution of the Monarchy itself is responsible for this income. No doubt it would require some detailed planning but why should it be very expensive? A number of Carribbean states seem to have managed the transition to a republic successfully and without breaking the bank.

I'm a quick learner.

Nothing to indicate that he plans to do so, so rest easy. Btw: Do you now agree that the UK Monarch is above the law?

If Charles were to be clocked driving at 120mph he could not be prosecuted. Unless the law is changed, he could carry on driving at 120mph each and every day until he tires of the pursuit. I'd say that pretty much puts him above the law and means that he isn't accountable.

The UK monarch is not meant to be political so what are these duties that us non-Royals are genetically unable to perform? The ceremonial opening of schools/ fetes/ etc? Call me arrogant but I am confident in my ability to put on a suit, say a few words of greeting, act civilly towards strangers and cut a ribbon. Where do I apply for the job of King?

"That's the whole point. Monarchs aren't elected. By and large, they are above the law and are pretty much unaccountable." Where in this paragraph do I say that Charles has broken any laws? To reinforce my point that should he do so he could not be prosecuted: https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen/is-it-true-that-the-queen-is-above-the-law-142670/?cn-reloaded=1

That's the whole point. Monarchs aren't elected. By and large, they are above the law and are pretty much unaccountable. Usually we can't get rid of them unless there is an armed uprising. I'm British so I (largely) limit my comments on this forum to articles about the UK but if I were Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, etc I doubt that my views on the Monarchy would be any different. I don't understand how you can reach that conclusion. I want an elected HoS but I don't crave a Putin. It's extremely debatable whether Putin was elected by means of a fair and free election but, playing Devil's Advocate and assuming that he was, the natural conclusion of your line of argument is that to avoid the possibility of a Putin type figure being elected into a position of power in the UK, we should do away with elections. That can only mean that we live under a dictatorship. Maybe s/he would be benevolent but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

So you support the arrest of individuals who are trying to keep women safe late at night? Hopefully, no women were assaulted in Westminster on Friday night/ early Saturday morning but, never mind eh? It's their own fault; shouldn't be out after dark. The main thing is that you got to enjoy the Coronation in blissful peace and tranquility. (In case anyone is in any doubt, my 2nd paragraph contains sarcasm although, obviously, I hope that no women were assaulted).

Or by way of a democratic election.

I must admit that there were more protesters than I thought. Seems like the republican movement is stronger than I thought. It's always a sign that someone has no rational argument to support their case when they resort to the pathetic 'anti- Brit' slur. Just because my vision of the UK doesn't contain doffing my cap and paying homage to 'my betters' - because of their birthright - it doesn't mean that I am anti-British.

What's the point of a protest if there is no one there to hear your message?

It's no big deal if you don't value free speech and the ability to protest peacefully.

Having reread the reports, I've changed my mind. Just as well the police intervened. Who knows what this protest could have led to: Petrograd? Kristallnacht? A narrow escape indeed.

That line being possession of a few straps and a padlock? We can all sleep safely tonight.

A handful of protesters among thousands of people who have an opposing view. Yep, a real threat to the rule of law. In any event, (1) they were removed (perhaps for their own safety) (2) it doesn't explain why protesters were arrested at the location where it was agreed that they could congregate. Unless, of course, you believe that possession of a few straps should be a criminal offence. Did you miss the bit in the link you posted where it stated;: "(Graham Smith) told BBC Radio Leeds that Republic "certainly have no intention of actually disrupting" the proceedings. "We will be very visible, we will be loud, we will be hard to miss, but the procession and the plans for the coronation will go ahead uninterrupted by us.""?

A knight (geddit!?) on the tiles with his mate Maha perhaps?

I should have been clearer. It was not the route from the Palace to the Abbey. Presumably the location of the protest - which I remind you was authorised by the police - was on the other side of the Square.

Then look the other way.

Trafalgar Square is a mile from Westminster Abbey. It is not on the procession route. If you were there specifically for the coronation then you probably wouldn't have come into contact with the protesters unless you went out of your way to confront them.

Thank you and thank you for your polite reply. What I actually said was that tourism wouldn't be negatively affected. I should probably have added 'significantly'. It's undeniably an event and it puts the UK - or more particularly, London - centre stage for a day. However, I don't think that it has any great lasting effect on the UK's position or influence on the world stage. I don't accept the argument that the Monarchy pays for itself or is of economic benefit to the UK. The same line of argument could be used by all other kingdoms and, if this is the case, presumably some republics would adopt a monarchy? Ahh, but the UK monarchy is different: The pageantry, the history, etc. Perhaps but Thailand, for example, doesn't do badly when it comes to pageantry and I doubt many tourists go there for that reason. In addition, many other European countries have monarchies which are centuries old. If pageantry was such a money spinning, I would have thought that a few of them would make more of it.

If you read the Sky article which I posted earlier, the Republic UK protesters were in Trafalgar Square where the police agreed a protest would be permitted. The protester in St. James Park was arrested on a public order offence because he had a megaphone and the noise might upset the horses!! Upset police horses who are often deployed at football matches, large demonstrations, etc!!! The police might have stronger grounds for detaining the 'egg protester' as he had stated that he would like to disrupt proceedings. The whole point of a protest is to get your message heard. In a free society individuals have the right to protest and that freedom has been withdrawn. I don't understand how you and others can support this police action.