comment: >
  
  Saudi Arabia and Thailand are not very fortunate examples.
context: British anti-monarchists said on Sunday that they planned to protest during the coronation of King Charles in May, saying the ceremony was “a slap in the face” for most people struggling with high inflation.
  Campaign group Republic said it had been in contact with London’s police force about its plans to hold a peaceful demonstration in Parliament Square, which is overlooked by Westminster Abbey where British monarchs are crowned.
  “The coronation is a celebration of hereditary power and privilege, it has no place in a modern society,” Graham Smith, Republic’s chief executive, said.
  “At a cost of tens of millions of pounds, this pointless piece of theatre is a slap in the face for millions of people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.”
  Buckingham Palace said on Saturday that the coronation would be celebrated with processions, a concert at Windsor Castle, street parties, light shows and community volunteering. >
  
  They should install battery fed air raid sirens all across the city. Would completely ruin the mood. 
  Good luck finding them in time. >
  
  The police is arresting people for simply holding signs, happened just yesterday in Bolton. They're going to start shooting at that.. >
  
  It is literally illegal to protest in Britain, they passed such a law a few years ago. It's crazy. Britain is not the US in rights even on paper. >
  
  Woah, it's illegal for you guys to protest? How do you organize/campaign for social change and such, just curious? Do you protest anyway? >
  
  Guys mostly chatting shit, but there have been some dodgy laws passed recently giving police more power to break up protests.
  It's far from being outright illegal to protest, even if the last protest we had that actually worked was in the fucking '80s. >
  
  Thank you for answering this question kindly. I was wondering if it was really illegal, but some dick took it and ran with it in another comment. I did look it up to see that it's not, but that was after I already asked in this comment. 
  Do you know what "law" that guy was referring to, supposedly making it illegal? I tried to look that up too, curious what they were talking about, but I got nada. >
  
  So the government are just going to pull out their Pre-Crime units again I guess, like before the Olympics and Royal Weddings.... >
  
  The UK is indeed steadily outlawing protest, using the extinction rebellion as a justification. "They disrupt buses, how dare they"
  But as per the article, this group is in contact with the police and will likely manage getting a permit. Allowing protests only under approved permit has been modern society's degradation of our power, that is true. >
  
  They were at it long before extinction rebellion. Right off the top of my head Thatcher outlawed certain types of industrial action. Then Tony Blair outlawed demonstrations in key areas of London, and brought in the (IMO) intentionally abusable anti terror laws. I don't remember a single case of laws increasing our rights in that area.
  Inch by inch the country moves closer to totalitarianism. >
  
  I lived in the UK only for 4 years, so your history is helpful. Same trajectory in my home country Canada. G20 about 10 years ago led to mass detention of thousands of Canadians, put in cages, like it's no big deal. >
  
  What do I have to Google to read more about that? It's the first time I'm hearing it. (or I'm not remembering the incident) >
  
  A Quebec cop told me, after a few beers, that he and others masked up and operated as "agents provocateurs." If they are peacefully protesting, he explained, our hands are tied. But, one punch, one bottle thrown and the game changes."  Then he grinned. >
  
  Thanks for refreshing my memory about Montebello. Beer cop was talking about the 3rd Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in 2001, so nothing new with these guys.
  SQ guy was able to say the no intent line with a straight face. Fevk. >
  
  He hasn’t been coronated yet? >
  
  
  coronated
  
  I thought it was "crowned"? (but then I'm a dirty anti-monarchist, or "republican" as we have decided to fashionably call ourselves) >
  
  Coronated is Latin for crowned. Corona means crown in Spanish. And Italian. >
  
  So coronavirus is crown virus >
  
  Yes, the category of virus that covid19 is in is coronavirus, named for the shape of its outer layer the "spike proteins" which give it a "crown". >
  
  Cool, virus fact >
  
  The title = yup, that's what they be doin'. It's in the name. >
  
  Seriously, /r/soundsaboutright >
  
  If it weren’t for the monarchy, the tabloid papers might go out of business. >
  
  Well they’d be real shitty anti-monarchists if they didn’t plan to protest haha >
  
  Just give the protestors some cake and all should be well >
  
  Depends on what kind of cake really >
  
  3½ months to go and I'm already sick to the back teeth with coverage of this pantomime.
  Time for a new filter. >
  
  Any time the Royal Family have a shindig, the facade of the UK being anything but a modern serfdom slips off. >
  
  The UK is a constitutional monarchy. The monarchs are symbols of the nation picked by parliament. They don't have any power >
  
  That's the usual line yeah, but the idea that they have no power is laughable. >
  
  I'm American, but I'm not getting serfdom out of this. All this proves is that the media in general is infatuated with them, which is something proven over and over again. >
  
  the monarchy has power the same way uber large corporations and wealthy people in america have it.  though connections, and leverage, and access.  now imagine if every time Berkshiare hawthway switched their CEO and the US government paid for a large party. >
  
  I mean, it would be more comparable to if the US threw a party when we elected a new President. Which we do. The only difference is ours has gotten way more toned down in the last 100 years. If I recall my history correctly when Andrew "The Genocider" Jackson won the party they threw was so hard they had to recarpet the White House and replace the furniture >
  
  No it wouldn't.  The president has a position in the actual governing of the country.  This whole thread is people saying the monarchy is a tourist thing and they hold no power. >
  
  The head of state is the head of state, rather elected or appointed or inherited. Also the party thrown isn't for them, its to show off the nation's wealth. Which is stupid mind you, but that's tradition for you. >
  
  Could they turn the royal properties in to national parks?  And visiting the queens castle would be like visiting Graceland? >
  
  A chunk of them already are. The Royals don't actually own much of the land that has their name on it. George IV sold it to the British Government after drinking all his money away. >
  
  And yet they're worth billions. Strange. >
  
  On paper, the Queen was worth around £500mn, and Charles got an exemption on a £200mn tax bill.
  But that's just on paper. I'm sure they're worth more. >
  
  Charles has a personal wealth of 600 million pounds. If you count the estates and various castles he inherited, he is worth billions. >
  
  Yeah, that's including Balmoral and Sandringham estates. He's still not a billionaire on paper, unless the BRF is hiding something.
  The Crown Estates that Charles inherits in right of the Crown are public property. He cannot sell or modify them. >
  
  Who owns the royal art collection? >
  
  
  Officially, the Queen holds it in trust for the nation, and her successors. Employees of the Royal Collection, however, routinely refer to it as a private collection. I asked for clarification of this from a Royal Collection spokeswoman. "The Royal Collection has been formed from the private collections of monarchs over 500 years," she says. "It is held in trust by the Queen as sovereign, however, not as a private individual."
  The public, then, is a "stakeholder" in the collection, in some sense. Most of it, after all, was acquired with our money. Yet public access is extremely limited, and even where granted, rendered beyond the grasp of most by those ticket prices. >
  
  Isn't charles going to die of old age in like 4 days though >
  
  His mom and dad got into theirs 90s, so Chuck probably has a good ~20 years in him. >
  
  He's only 70? >
  
  Yeah, 74 exactly >
  
  Bruh, he looks waaaay older >
  
  I just find it weird how obsessed Americas are with the royal family >
  
  reading these comments imagine if Americans cared this much about workers rights or basic health care >
  
  That would require critical thinking skills and the ability to focus and ponder upon one subject for a long period of time….both of which are in short supply among most people here. >
  
  And thinking empathetically about more than just themselves. >
  
  Good luck with that. We have very little true freedom of speech on this subject. For example, some republicans who had intended to quietly protest during the Queen’s platinum jubilee were arrested. I don’t think they were ever charged: just held for several hours. A guy who had the temerity to say “who elected him” in Oxford when the accession of Charles was announced was arrested and charged. Later the charges were dropped. >
  
  Idk why modern civilizations still hold on to monarchy. It's so dated. No one believes the king is God's emissary anymore. There is no more "divine right." It's time they stepped aside for good. Even a symbolic position is too much. There's nothing special about these people. Celebrity worship is embarrassing. >
  
  The crown is basically a government sponsored celebrity. The royal family makes the UK government and economy billions. >
  
  They can't continue to make you billions as celebrities alone? Why not write them out of law and keep them on as some kind of "reality tv show stars" on a show called: EX-Royal. >
  
  Nope. It's the right thing to do AND it's only a matter of time now - just read the temperature of the room. The monarchy can stay on as celebrities on a reality tv-show after they're no longer monarchs. >
  
  And your life would be meaningfully changed afterwards... How, precisely?
  (Oh no, u/sirvexsmasher blocked me because they're too incompetent to examine or defend their political positions with any thought whatsoever when challenged - even when it's as simple as "how would your life change".
  What a blowhard ideologue). >
  
  Who cares how it affects my life in particular? It's the right thing to do and liberal-democracy demands that this undemocratic and Illiberal office is removed. Yours isn't a valid argument.
  No, that's not an argument. The fact that LIBERAL-democracies exist with an Illiberal and undemocratic head of state isn't an argument supporting the existence of the Illiberal and undemocratic head of state. >
  
  Some of the most democratic countries in the world are monarchies. Having a figure head monarch does not impact how democratic a nation is, since they dont actually hold any power beyond popularity. Why are you so eager to dismantle the tradition and culture of other countries? >
  
  This may be an unpopular opinion but I do think Harry has put a huge blow on the monarchy. All we see are people saying he overshares and its a vanity project, but repetition is absolutely the key towards convincing people.
  People hear it from Harry all around the world of how problematic the monarchy is. They're also hearing it through other outlets because of the economy. Those two together makes for an even more impactful experience. 
  Like with advertising. You may hate that Popeyes has an ad for their chicken. But should your friend mention a special deal, something you also saw on TV, that idea becomes very much more interesting. >
  
  I thought we were called republicans? >
  
  Sell all the castles and build housing for the homeless. >
  
  He's not crowned yet? How long has it been since QE2 died?
  Also yes, protest away. It's simply inexcusable for the upper crust to be partying away while a lot of people are tightening their belts. >
  
  Versailles is a tourist attraction and France doesn’t have a monarchy >
  
  Ghosts don't count? >
  
  It's about time. >
  
  r/AbolishTheMonarchy >
  
  The death of the Queen marked the end of my support for this institution. It’s done… Let it end. >
  
  Someone please explain to me why your still giving money hand over fist to people who do nothing for you! They serve no function other than to spend your hard earned money on a outrageous party! >
  
  Anti-monarchists? The term is republican. >
  
  So it costs a lot of money to put something like this on, is it offset by tourism gains or was that more applicable to the Queen?  I was in London for the diamond jubilee by accident, and the tourism was staggering. >
  
  I would say so, I'll be visiting from Canada. We'll be staying for 17 days, and traveling to at least 5 different regions in England. It's not cheap. 
  It'll be a helluva vacation tho!!! 
  We're really looking forward to it! >
  
  You're coming to Europe to see a posh guy get given a crown and put on a throne because he was born into a certain family?  Of all the things you could do with your time and money. >
  
  
  You're coming to Europe to see a posh guy get given a crown and put on a throne because he was born into a certain family?  Of all the things you could do with your time and money.
  
  That's pretty narrow-minded of you. 
  For starters, that'll be one day of our 17 day visit. 
  Hopefully, we'll get to see a bunch of towns / cities all dolled up, bunting, Union flags up, street parties etc.
  Whether you agree with the monarchy or not, parties like this are very attractive to tourists like us. >
  
  How dare people go and see a huge event in the country they're visiting whilst they're on holiday there >
  
  Fuck king tampon and that horse he rides. >
  
  Yeah the last time he was shot at he really shat his pants! Oh no actually he stood there and fiddled with his cufflinks. >
  
  That man had the chance to be named King Arthur and he passed on the opportunity, no wonder people are protesting. >
  
  Good. I hope more people become anti monarchists >
  
  If you don’t protest then, when would you? >
  
  Good fuck em >
  
  There are millions of issues in Britain which can be solved in Parliament, and they think removing the monarch would automatically solve them.
  If they knew Presidents rely on a salary, visit other countries via airplanes, and have to stay in fancy presidential palaces. Plus, the office of President has to be a politician, whereas a monarch is politically neutral.
  For example, Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are in fact a parliamentary constitutional monarchies but are democratic socialist, able to make the living standards the highest in the world and have access to free healthcare. 
  All it took were acts of parliament. Britain can do the same without going through the hassle of hoping removing a monarch would solve every issue. >
  
  
  whereas a monarch is politically neutral.
  
  It's not though, is it. It's an extremely conservative institution. >
  
  It is they are outside of politics >
  
  There is no such thing as being "outside of politics". >
  
  Yes there is >
  
  "Should we have a monarchy?" Is a political question, a question about politics. The monarchy is not neutral on this question. Believing the monarchy should exist is a political position.
  So fundamentally, even if they had no opinions about anything else, and had no other involvement in what happens in this country (both of which they do) they would be political. >
  
  No, don't protest it, we get an extra day off work for the coronation! >
  
  Okay someone smart please explain if there’s a way to actually scrub off monarchy. A way that they keep their titles but not get any privileges. >
  
  I know no king but the King in the North, whose name is Stark >
  
  Reddit cope >
  
  Exactly. >
  
  I support this. The British Monarchy is not necessary and does nothing of value by living luxuriously off the taxpayers. There is 0 reason to continue it. >
  
  How about... the British public want to continue it?
  Everyone is pro Democracy until they are on the losing side. >
  
  How do you know? It's never been put to a vote and I don't expect it will be any time soon. How are you high-horsing about "Democracy" to defend a hereditary monarchy? >
  
  Polls? 
  You don't referendum any old thing without support. >
  
  Having a monarchy in 2023 is just embarrassing >
  
  So many countries have them. 
  Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Thailand, Saudi Arabia. Just to name a few.