RayC

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.

There's another thread about the financial value of the monarchy so I won't repeat the whole discussion here. In short, the monarchy raises most of its' money from the Crown Estate, the bulk of which is then handed over to the Treasury. Whether you think that this income should belong to the Monarch in the first place is another matter. The idea that tourism would be negatively affected if the monarchy were abolished is imo nonsense. France is an obvious counter-example.

Good question: Why were they arrested? https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/kings-coronation-anti-monarchy-group-leader-among-activists-arrested-on-way-to-protest-site-12874307 I need some some superglue. I'd better buy it online; I don't want to risk walking back from the shop with it and getting arrested.

So @OneMoreFarang polite and reasonable comment upsets you because he isn't English? Fortunately not all we Englishmen are as xenophobic as you.

As I said earlier, the process for abolishing the monarchy would require careful thought. Whatever may be the eventual ownership of the Crown Estate, I can't think of any reason why it should have to cease its' trading activities in the meantime. Looked at your link again, I still can't see where you get your figures from. The revenue paid to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate over the past 10 years is £3bn whereas the Sovereign Grant for 22/23 is £86.3m. Anyway, the actual amounts are besides the point. It all boils down to whether one considers this to be an example of the Monarch's largesse or whether one thinks that this is income which should rightfully belong to the State in the first place. This obviously depends on the individual's point of view

How is this figure of £220m/ year derived? Imo a better way of viewing the Royal Family is that they are shareholders (and employees?) of a commercial organisation which pays them a generous dividend. I accept that unless the Royals are put up against a wall or exiled - I do not support either option - then the process for abolishing the Monarchy will require a lot of thought. Part of that discussion would presumably encompass the Royals 'shareholding' in the Crown Estate; however, I don't see why this should prevent the Crown Estate continuing its' commercial activities? Agreed No obvious reason why the UK economy or commercial activities of Crown Estate should suffer. I would suggest that there is little evidence to support that conclusion.

That might well be the case but it supports the premise that the UK's support in the 14 countries named in the article is relatively insignificant.

Thank you for pointing out my error. Of course, what I meant to say was: "In reality, St Lucia; the Bahamas; Jamaica; St Kitts and Nevis; Antigua and Barbuda; Grenada; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Australia; Canada; New Zealand; Belize; Papua New Guinea; the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now." Now what point were you trying to make?

I doubt that any of the 15 nations would want anything other than a cordial relationship with the UK (and vica versa) if they were to become republics. Replacing the UK monarchy would simply be a symbolic break with the last remnants of colonialism. In reality, all 15 nations have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now.

Support for the British monarchy is on the decline in most, if not all, countries. (Do a search for "support for monarchy in < insert country>" for confirmation of this fact). A matter of time before a break is made in most countries.

It's an article from the Daily Mail. They deal exclusively in innuendo.

Brian Oulton was gay?!???? "Infamy, infamy; they've all got it in for me!"

I originally wrote: "I don't have much time for Trump the politician but his family ties to Europe (Germany and Scotland) are a lot stronger than Biden's (2nd generation vs. 4th/5th)." I may have got the actual generations wrong but Biden's ancestors migrated to the US before Trump's. That is a fact and that is my point. Completely irrelevant to whether Donald Trump feels any kinship with Germany. That is opinion. Even if it is correct, how on earth has that anything to do with his family tree?

Yes exactly. Trump's family ties to Europe are more recent than Biden's i.e. his ancestors on both his paternal and maternal side migrated to the US more recently than Biden's. Whether Trump's grandfather left Germany under a cloud and/or Trump lied about his father's place of birth is totally irrelevant.

I don't have much time for Trump the politician but his family ties to Europe (Germany and Scotland) are a lot stronger than Biden's (2nd generation vs. 4th/5th).

https://www.ft.com/content/ce458b68-b0ea-453f-8730-a174256e7c4e or https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-retained-eu-laws-kemi-badenoch-tory-party-erg-anger