276°
Posted 20 hours ago

Socialist Live Laugh Meme Abolish The Monarchy T-Shirt

£9.9£99Clearance
ZTS2023's avatar
Shared by
ZTS2023
Joined in 2023
82
63

About this deal

See also: The Freethinker and early republicanism: the letter by a ‘librarian from Colchester’ that led to the formation of Republic Worse, the coronation arrests form part of a pattern. At the King’s Accession Proclamation in Oxford last September, one man was arrested for shouting three words: ‘Who elected him?’ Not long afterward, in London, another man was threatened with arrest for walking while holding a blank sheet of paper: he was told by an officer that he would probably be arrested if he dared to write ‘Not my king’ on it. Here’s everything we know about the anti-monarchy protests – and whether or not it would actually be possible to abolish the royal family.

I s the Metropolitan Police a republican fifth column? Since it hauled the author of this book off to the cells hours before Charles III’s coronation, in full sight of the world’s media, the campaign group he heads, Republic, has almost doubled its membership. When the police clapped him in handcuffs, Graham Smith was preparing to perform that most fearful of treasons: shuffle around Trafalgar Square waving a placard bearing the words ‘Not my king’. Smith’s sixteen hours in police custody has generated more publicity for his organisation than the eighteen years he’s toiled away campaigning to replace the monarch with an elected head of state. Charles III" does seem like a bad choice, in part because as some on social media have pointed out Charles I of England was defeated by the Parliamentarian Forces in the English Civil War, and was later executed. His son Charles II of England was restored to the throne, but is more commonly remembered for his rampant womanizing, having fathered at least a dozen illegitimate children; while there is also the Jacobite connection to the "Young Pretender" Charles Edward Stuart, who had claimed the title "Charles III." If there was one resounding takeaway from Harry’s candid and at times, painful memoir, Spare (and I am not talking about descriptions of his frostbitten todger) is how utterly trapped he was and his family still are.

14. HOURS of entertainment

Monarchists speak with revulsion of who an elected president may be. The royal historian Robert Lacey, in a recent debate, asked in tones of horror, “President Lineker? President Street-Porter?” But, urges Graham Smith, CEO of the Republic pressure group, look around Europe at dignified presidents who understand their ceremonial duties and the political limits to their role, while acting as constitutional guarantors. Former politicians take on a presidency with as much independence as our Speakers in parliament. Look across the Irish Sea at Michael D Higgins, Mary McAleese or Mary Robinson and ponder why British voters are too wild or daft to be trusted to make equally sensible choices. An important question to ask here is, if the United Kingdom did not currently have a monarchy, would anyone be advocating one?

I remember our school celebrating the queen's golden jubilee in 2002. Even at that age I didn't understand the hysteria around the event, or why people were so obsessed. You can ask yourself if this is the best time for the discussion. If not, when would be the best time to have this discussion? No president would be perfect, but they would be accountable, and they would represent us in a way no monarch ever could. Personally, I would prefer a head of state who could effectively enforce a written constitution and bravely lead the way in defending liberal values. Think of Václav Havel and Mary Robinson, two presidents who proudly supported Salman Rushdie in the 1990s while our own head of state, the great champion of our vaunted liberties, was silent. Our monarchs seem to have spent more time secretly lobbying for tax exemptions than standing up for liberty. The saturation point for many, he envisaged, would be the middle of this week and although he anticipated overt republican and anti-monarchy sentiment to decline around the Queen’s funeral, he expected a resurgence soon after, when many predict the UK will enter a different era of debate over the future of its royal family. Additionally, recent figures suggest there is less public support for the monarchy than in previous years, particularly among young people. Just under 40% ofUK citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 would prefer an elected head of state rather than a monarch, according to an April 2023 YouGov poll of 4,592 adults for the BBC's "Panorama."It's important to recognize that although there are people and organizations that want to see an end to the monarchy, the majority of people are in no way celebrating the death of the Queen. Other republicans admit they feel bullied into supporting something they don’t believe in. “I feel unable to express an opinion without being branded disrespectful, so therefore I’ve been funnelled into complying with the country’s grief,” said Aisha, who also requested a pseudonym. The tradition to take a different regnal name began when Queen Victoria – Elizabeth II's great-great-grandmother – ascended the throne in 1837. All prior monarchs had used their first baptismal name as their regnal name. However, when Victoria was born her uncle, the Prince Regent (future King George IV) had specifically prohibited the royal names of Charlotte, Elizabeth, or Georgina. She was subsequently named "Alexandrina" after her godfather, the Russian Czar Alexander I. For most of her childhood, she was known as "Drina," and up until her coronation, many in the general public didn't know what her official "regnal" name would even be. She could have been Elizabeth II, but instead opted to use her second name, Victoria. Despite calls to abolish the monarchy trending on social media, Levin doesn't see actually it happening, but that doesn't mean changes won't be made.

The existence of the royal bond is enshrined in the Constitution, so that must be changed. To do this, a constitutional amendment must be approved in each of the 10 provinces and by both the House of Commons and the Senate. To make matters worse, modern history tells us that if anyone tries to amend the Constitution for one reason, all of the many players will scramble to add their own proposals in other areas, leading inevitably to failure. Kennedy said, “My answer is that it’s a legitimate moment to ask the future monarchy.”“Republican/anti-royalist sentiments have existed for a very long time, but they wax and wane. These sentiments are now waxing slightly more. Charles III, his mother Queen Elizabeth II wasn’t as warm and fuzzy as he was.One must therefore devise a road map that navigates each of these obstacles in a predictable and transparent way. Above all, the entire process must be based on the greatest possible legitimacy: the popular vote. Where do Canadians stand? What terrible disruption did these nefarious republicans have in mind? Were they planning to plant bombs in letterboxes? Were they going to throw paint at the King’s golden carriage? No. They were there to hold up some placards in protest against the institution of monarchy. They liaised with the Met for months before the coronation and, so far as we know, had no plans to do anything seriously disruptive, let alone illegal.

Asda Great Deal

Free UK shipping. 15 day free returns.
Community Updates
*So you can easily identify outgoing links on our site, we've marked them with an "*" symbol. Links on our site are monetised, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.
New Comment