The very nature of rule (at any level of power projection) via birthright is abhorrent and antithetical to every fibre of my being.

running things now. Then there will be zero chance of any balance whatsoever to the public in an opinion that gets "the chance to vocalize". I know the Royal Fam is not supposed to be political but indeed they are.

Imagine it like a sort of 2 party system in a way. Really not parties but sort of. The Royals may have tons of flaws and also need to change but without them all that will be left is a Conservative takeover and no voice for the people. That is what role the Royal Family can provide. What they have provided. A symbol that provides the threat of "balance" which some politicians want to silence and has no chance of having any meaning.

Gobsmacked to see this bit:

LOLOLOL

So now the Crown is the voice for the people???



The UK monarchy is NOT an effective counterbalance to the conservative (small c) strata within British society. As an institution, it is the very epitome of it.

It is also a deeply racist institution when taken as a whole, including its shameful penumbra that reaches out deep into the national psyche, as has been evidenced right up until this very day.

Sad to see this rule-by-birthright, pro-monarchist tosh on an American (you know, the nation that was founded via a war to get out from under the bootheel of the Crown) nominally leftish political chat board.

You would be singing a different tune if Charles was a rabid reactionary force, and guess what, unless you do away with the monarchy, there is not a damn thing that can be done about it if he was.

Even Charles, with his support of some environmental issues, is in no sense a social reformer, as his stewardship of the Duchy of Cornwall has shown in his time as heir apparent.

It blatantly tinkers behind the scenes, in line with its current constitutional rights, with legislation that may affect its many vast landholdings and financial interests - such legislation has to be run by the king before it even proceeds, never mind the final process of royal assent. On other issues, it goes with the flow, with only token disapproval, if any at all.

There have been no grumblings or even comments from Charles or the rest of the royals at the extreme actions and statements of the most rightwing government this country has ever seen, so the idea that the royals represent in any way a "voice for the people" is utterly laughable.

For instance, Charles has said nothing about the sinister arrests of protesters before and at his coronation, for only a few of which the police have now started offering cheap token apologies. If there was a time when Charles might have called for mercy and indulgence, not to mention decency and common sense, from his position of extreme privilege, this would be it, and it would set a better tone for the start of his period as monarch by upholding freedom of speech and peaceful dissent. Instead, silence as the dust and glitter settle on the spectacle of his extravagant concert at Windsor Castle.

What the royal family does do is add a veneer of distraction to the government's agenda of the day. That's the illusion of "balance" you mentioned. It's anything but.

The royals' obscene wealth and entitled isolation from the real world most of us inhabit are in stark contrast to the tightening of belts and increasingly draconian laws the rest of the country are expected to bear, and it's a deeply conservatizing force.

I know that Dear Charles has been ridiculed for decades by not only the press, but just about everyone in the pubs. Going to Boots for a "box of Charlies" took on a significance long before Diana left us. It seems that there are very few members of the royal fam that people can actually tolerate, and maybe only two that they would share a pint with in a friendly way.

Oh the stuff I get roped into these days!

I do think that lots of people still appreciate the monarchy, even if yesterday's ceremony was a bit much for my "low church" tastes.

than they like to admit.