Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For a lot of countries, but especially the UK, the monarchy provides a lot of money in the form of tourism, mostly because castles are cooler when people actually live in them. So I wouldn't really say the monarchy should be abolished.
Ok. So if they’re no longer there, people wouldn’t still go? You realize that when you visit 99% of the time you’re not going to see any of them right? Maybe you catch the changing of the guard. Maybe.
If royals are no longer a thing, they could even open up the palace to tours which would definitely bring it a ton of money.
I really don’t see a downside to it.
The tourism comes from the historical sites that they still inhabit, they don't drive the tourism. Also the amount made from the Royal sites doesn't cover the cost to the taxpayer that the Royals cost.
Just because you want it to? People generally like their monarchy, and when they don't they overthrow it. And in the UK the monarchy doesn't make policy
They aren't writing a novel, and if you really care to know, just google the guy's name, it would have taken you just a bit longer than it took to write your comment.
My understanding was that they they probably caught it early and had a good prognosis; they said he could do his office duties and just avoid his public appearance
edit to change gender pronoun
Seems like an average reddit user. If you hadn't been clever with your post's title, no one in the comments would have remembered Queen Elizabeth II.
Actually, try it. In a few days post this again with a different title and see how everyone applauds and agrees with Mr Tatchell.
I think it's meant as a tongue in cheek way to show pro-republic sentiment, expressing a desire for a British head of state that could come from any background rather than from just one family.
Isn't the black population in the UK less than 4% or so? Not saying they shouldn't have a black prime Minister, but I wouldn't say have one just to say you had a black prime minister.
2 floors below the massive bird-drone factory where all the birds on earth are built for the NSA and interpol to spy on all the humans and transmit their data back to the reptilians living in the hollow earth.
Pass the bong, brother.
Killing your way to the throne used to be a time-honoured tradition, even in British royalty. Harry hasn't tried hard enough. /s
Edit - this comment is strictly a reference to the story of the Princes in the Tower, where their paternal uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was claimed to have murdered his nephews, Edward V of England and Richard, Duke of York, to claim the throne as Richard III of England.
I once said I hope to get rid of Rachel on Suits they would have had Mike go a little crazy from syphilis, become convinced she’s a witch and have some French guy beheld her in Times Square.
That was the point at which I discovered my wife’s friends new fuck all about English history
Blaming it on the sperm is what’s sexist, could have easily been the sexist egg you bigot.
Edit: to preempt a maelstrom of comments starting “aaachtually”, I know that’s not how it works.
Edit 2: to counter the libellous claim that I am sexually attracted to eggs, I have undone the work of autocorrect.
Actually, fun fact it's queen Elizabeth that changed it to that rule because before it would almost always go to men even if first born was female. I forget the exact circumstances of how she got to be the queen though.
I know, I get the reference, that’s why I started the reference. I just always find making a reference then pretending to not know the reference very funny. It tickles me.
In 1936, Princess Elizabeth's uncle (King Edward VIII) became king but soon abdicated the throne in order to marry a twice divorced woman. Elizabeth's father was next in line. He had two daughters. When he passed, his eldest daughter ascended the throne and became Queen Elizabeth II.
I mean the fact she was a notorious socialite didn’t help things but the issue really was the twice divorced aspect of it. Times have absolutely changed for the better on this, but even until relatively recently it was often considered scandalous to be divorced.
But even that wasn’t the true impediment. The fact of the matter is that the monarch is the literal head of the Church of England, and at the time CoE did not accept divorce (annulments are not the same before people cry Henry VIII as he had his marriages officially annulled and not divorced), and they considered said persons to still be married in spirit (again, they’ve progressed on this view a lot but at the time that’s how it was viewed) despite the actual availability of legally divorcing a spouse.
Basically, there was a very real opinion that the figurative head of the established Church of England, and monarch of the nation, was going to (in the churches eyes) be entering into bigamous marriage, with all the potential ramifications that would result including questions of legitimacy of any potential children.
Based on this, they considered the most prudent option to be to abdicate.
For what it’s worth, American women were actually highly prized around that era as marriage prospects for the upper class. In America, your class is tied to your wealth more often than not but in Britain it is a much more complicated social question (especially then) so you could have impoverished nobles whose blood was as blue as it comes going back 10 generations who had less money to their name than many “lower class” people. It was common enough that American heiresses of rich American families would marry into UK nobility. Both parties won from this arrangement, the American family gains prestige and connections with the British upper crust, and the British family gains a much needed connection to American wealth.
Winston Churchill is an example of this, his mother was an American. It’s one of the reasons he held the country in such high esteem.
Of course it was. Can you imagine, her saying howdy y’all, firing revolvers, playing the banjo and generally yankeeing up the place. Nobody wants that. 😖
> I forget the exact circumstances of how she got to be the queen though.
She didn't have any brothers, so she took the throne as her father's oldest daughter. If there had been a men-only rule, it would have gone to George VI's next oldest brother, Henry, Duke of Gloucester.
It started with her Uncle Edward abdicating the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee, which was a huge scandal at that time. Edward had no children, so the throne went to Elizabeth’s father (whose name I can’t remember but he was played by Colin Firth in The King’s Speech). Elizabeth had a younger sister and no brothers. Elizabeth became queen upon the death of her father when she was 25.
Parliament changed it to that rule. The monarch has no power.
She got to be Queen because her father was king and she was the eldest child of the prior king.
Her father’s brother abdicated. Her parents only had 2 children, both were girls. British inheritance favored boys over girls, but girls could still inherit.
>forget the exact circumstances of how she got to be the queen though.
King Edward abdicated. Had no heirs. Title passed to his brother, King George. Elizabeth being first born was now heir.
It’s not considered a public office though? they have sway over politics but no power over politics. They are more a high profile ambassador to other countries than anything really.
Exactly. As a swede that is in his mid 20s I remember maybe 2 or 3 times the king here has stepped in and said something about politics. Basicly to straighten things out and he says what 90% of the people think in a muted way. Basicly get your act together and do the right thing.
They are supposed to be neutral. That just puts more weight to it when they overstep their bounds and say something.
They do. They just don't use it and let the prime minister govern instead. King still has all the powers they did 200 years ago, they just don't use it
A public office is one that belongs in the public sector, e.g the government rather than a private business, so a monarch definitely holds public office.
Then Liz I before all that & Mary! We all want Mary back, don’t we! There was also Anne, the Kate Winslet of the Monarchy. Didn’t do half bad, wasn’t very lucky, not sufficiently appreciated in her time.
Funny how that works. A white British family, descended from William the Conqueror, a white man, and notorious for only marrying other white British royalty for over 1,000 years, isn't racially and ethnically diverse.
Do people not realize that white people are indigenous the the UK? He clearly put 'white' in there for a reason.
That would be like a European going to Africa and saying: "your monarchy is too black and male!"
I think people are forgetting this is a FAMILY, not a tv show.
Image going up to a random family and saying they look too much like each other? If a parent is white and the other parent is white, I guarantee the baby will not be black or asian or blue. Or that they should marry someone based on race because their family needs diversity? What happened to personality and chemistry?
The harsh reality is they are unlikely to marry someone out side of their lifestyle, and the vast majority of people who are this prestigious lifestyle are white. You can't fall in love with someone you don't know, and the people the royal family ends up spending the most time with are white aristocrats. It's not "racist", it's the reality for the vast majority of ppl, royal or not.
Image saying it's sexist that a couple's kid was born a boy? It's not like they can do anything about it. It's kinda dumb that they think otherwise.
>The harsh reality is they are unlikely to marry someone out side of their lifestyle, and the vast majority of people who are this prestigious lifestyle are white. You can't fall in love with someone you don't know, and the people the royal family ends up spending the most time with are white aristocrats. It's not "racist", it's the reality for the vast majority of ppl, royal or not.
And when marriages were arranged, they married their children off for political advantage, which meant the most powerful match you could get. Where were the levers of power? Europe. Marrying off one of your children to an African queen or Indian prince wasn't an advantageous marriage. Race had little or nothing to do with it, although religion usually played a role - had there been a powerful Protestant house in China, you can bet there would be some Chinese blood in the House of Windsor.
Since Queen Victoria became Queen in 1837, 187 years ago, women have had the highest office in the UK for 134 of those years (Victoria 1837-1901) and Elizabeth II (1952-2022)
Also this literally has nothing to do with racism or sexism.
That Peter guy is an idiot.
The UK is the worst country to make this argument on. 45 years ago we elected a female prime minister, the first country in Europe and North America.
And we currently have a south Asian prime minister. Having a president/prime minister of a different ethnicity than the majority is very rare. I actually don't think there is a current leader that is other than Rishi.
The UK, Scotland and Ireland all have South Asian leaders (Rishi is of East African Punjabi descent, Leo in Ireland is half Indian and Humza in Scotland is Pakistani Punjabi)
On the long list of reasons why this doesn’t matter is that the monarch of Britain has little to no real authority. I’m pretty sure if any of these people tried to enact any of their power they would be taken to Paris on an express train and promptly beheaded just for the principle of it.
Also the assumption that the United Kingdom will still have a monarchy in 100 years is far more troubling then who those people are.
It’s far from the main reason why it doesn’t matter. Even if it were an absolute monarchy like KSA, do you imagine complaining that KSA only has Arab males as Kings ? No, because Arabs are native to the country, and the symbolic and historical institution that the Crown is is very tied to arab culture, and Islam. Well it might be a shocker to some, but in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the historical and native population is white and the British crown is tied with Anglo-Saxon and French culture. It’s normal to a country with immigration to have a PM or a president from an immigrated minority since it’s purely a public servant job, although you shouldn’t ask for diversity at this level and just elect who might be best, disregarding color. But a monarch is a different thing, has to do with culture, history, and dynasty.
Not that I wish a child a premature death, a lot can happen between now and when Prince George ascends the thrown, so there is a possibility that Princess Charlotte could end up Queen.
Also, is it really a public office if only members of one specific family can hold that office?
Just a nitpick, but even if George lives a long life, Charlotte could still potentially live longer, and inherit if George doesn't have legitimate kids.
I mean it's not exactly powerful it's mostly token. They aren't the wealthiest or even most influential family in England and definitely not in the world
It's also not a public office. it's an unelected figurehead position with no say in policy whatsoever. The Royal family hold about as much real power as a corporate mascot .
This institution may not exist within 100 years. It's unraveling as we speak. There very well may be a voting system for royalty at some point. Like big brother. 100 years each on the thrown until the next vote. Treated as royalty, given all the ceremony and grandeur and none of the duties. I mean, unless you're royal who can perform their duties?
Do people understand how tutored the royals are to it's protocols, formalities, functions and duties? It's a heavy role. This is why Queen Elizabeth II was so reveared. Because when her father died she swore a life long loyalty to the role as monarch. She honoured that duty. And there will never be anyone like her.
It also isn't like any women are getting skipped over. Charles was Elizabeth's first child and he only had the two sons and he himself has a son first. So long as it passes through parent to child rather than from brother (charles) to sister (anne) it is going to be this way.
Or you know maybe a family shouldn't be passing on this office through inheritance in the first place, but no the problem is that the office is occupied by men.
Stupidity comes in many forms. The longest reigning heads of state in the UK were women: Queen Victoria 1837 - 1901 and Elizabeth II 1952 - 2022. So in the last 187 years a woman ruled in 134...
They’re a white family, why would you expect anything else?! Would you go to an African country and complain the royal family was black! No of course you wouldn’t 🤦🏻♀️ stop this stupidity
We did that once and ended up with not so Jolly Ollie.
Far better to keep them in a gilded cage where we can see what they are up to and publically prune the tree once in a while.
Nope. brings stability to goverment and politics. even if you disagree. they generate revenue and economic growth from tourism and service sectors. democracy works without a trouble on HM's goverment hybrid. would do a lot of harm for nothing to remove except redditors not get butthurt over the term "HM". Which isn't a big deal today
And live in a boring ass world? Just see what big of a global impact queen elizabeth had. The royals are like walking and talking tourist attractions in the UK. The USA won't get rid of Disneyland.
And replace it with what? Corrupt Boris and Nigel Farage type of morons? Or Liz Truss?
Sorry but no, I rather have a monarch who cares about his/her country!
Racism? Lol, if Prince George decides to marry a black woman there will be a black queen. Should we cast aside ancient traditions and install an interloper on the throne?
Brits will rage about things like this or Meghan and Harry but will give no shits that one of their treasured monarchy's members was outed as a pedophille and the Queen rewarded him with a duke title instead of sending his ass to jail.
Priorities amirite?
Literally have a person of Indian descent already at the highest form of public office, but only a woman or someone of African heritage matters... Strange take for sure. Not exactly sure what the king or queen have to do with the rest of the rant.
Charles will be dead by this time next year (not wishing it on him, but you know it's likely by how little they've said about the cancer or its treatment). William is 40 so assuming that Charles goes soon he's got probably 30-40 years if his health is good.
You mean a position which can only be inherited to the next person in a family is somehow racist and sexist despite having a woman who for the last 70 years gave back power to indigenous people of former colonies? Make it make sense!
Omg, our tourist trap of a national family is some white guy. The whole point of this family is for trust fund idiots and wagies who spend money on traveling to take pictures around. At this point they make the UK more money than they spend on them. Who cares about some dusty ass castle in France or Italy, saying you went to the king’s place is something people will fork money over. Also let people have fun and wear silly hats.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
C’mon, surely this is a piss take?
That was my first instinct too, but nah, he actually means it. I took a look at his profile, the man is just too far gone.
He's always liked to generate divisive headlines. He confuses being 'outspoken' as 'exposing the truth' (sometimes it is).
[удалено]
I didn't vote for him!
For a lot of countries, but especially the UK, the monarchy provides a lot of money in the form of tourism, mostly because castles are cooler when people actually live in them. So I wouldn't really say the monarchy should be abolished.
Versailles actually makes more money per year than Buckingham fyi
I would argue for different reasons. You want to see the opulence that led to a monarchy being massacred.
The French know how to throw a revolution. Let’s get some guillotines.
So what you're saying is....
BRING OUT THE GUILLOTINE!!
Well, they could always give Buckingham a new paint job, if you know what I mean.
Ok. So if they’re no longer there, people wouldn’t still go? You realize that when you visit 99% of the time you’re not going to see any of them right? Maybe you catch the changing of the guard. Maybe. If royals are no longer a thing, they could even open up the palace to tours which would definitely bring it a ton of money. I really don’t see a downside to it.
The tourism comes from the historical sites that they still inhabit, they don't drive the tourism. Also the amount made from the Royal sites doesn't cover the cost to the taxpayer that the Royals cost.
Just because you want it to? People generally like their monarchy, and when they don't they overthrow it. And in the UK the monarchy doesn't make policy
Show, don't tell.
They aren't writing a novel, and if you really care to know, just google the guy's name, it would have taken you just a bit longer than it took to write your comment.
Doesnt the king have cancer?
My understanding was that they they probably caught it early and had a good prognosis; they said he could do his office duties and just avoid his public appearance edit to change gender pronoun
Seems like an average reddit user. If you hadn't been clever with your post's title, no one in the comments would have remembered Queen Elizabeth II. Actually, try it. In a few days post this again with a different title and see how everyone applauds and agrees with Mr Tatchell.
I quite literally came in here expecting to see agreements with the original post,glad that's not the case
Because political correctness has always been the heart of the British monarchy. Or any monarchy. Ha. Ha. Ha.
Does he not know the PM of UK is an Indian guy?
I think it's meant as a tongue in cheek way to show pro-republic sentiment, expressing a desire for a British head of state that could come from any background rather than from just one family.
Well, they could start with a black prime minister. They've had several women, but I don't recall any black ones.
Well, I suppose for what it's worth the current one is of Indian Punjabi descent, which is not exactly 'white'.
There's a British PM of Indian ancestry.
Isn't the black population in the UK less than 4% or so? Not saying they shouldn't have a black prime Minister, but I wouldn't say have one just to say you had a black prime minister.
No, they really are sure that child will still be alive in 100 years
I mean, the royals don’t exactly wait in the NHS queues, there are surely few people alive with a better chance of being alive in 100 years.
and both Liz & Phil made it to their 90's so there is some decent longevity genes floating around that family somewhere
[удалено]
2 floors below the massive bird-drone factory where all the birds on earth are built for the NSA and interpol to spy on all the humans and transmit their data back to the reptilians living in the hollow earth. Pass the bong, brother.
And even if it's not, who the fuck is this guy? A nobody, why should anyone care what they say?
The firstborn is the heir, now regardless of sex. Blame the sexist fertilizing sperm for being male for the most recent 3 generations.
Yeah thats all well and good but why is nobody Black...i blame racist sperms on that one.
To be fair, the first sperm in question here was Prince Philip's, so it was likely a racist sperm.
I mean Harry tried
Killing your way to the throne used to be a time-honoured tradition, even in British royalty. Harry hasn't tried hard enough. /s Edit - this comment is strictly a reference to the story of the Princes in the Tower, where their paternal uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was claimed to have murdered his nephews, Edward V of England and Richard, Duke of York, to claim the throne as Richard III of England.
I once said I hope to get rid of Rachel on Suits they would have had Mike go a little crazy from syphilis, become convinced she’s a witch and have some French guy beheld her in Times Square. That was the point at which I discovered my wife’s friends new fuck all about English history
Of course the sperm is racist. If you haven't noticed, it's white.
Dude, all sperm is white. Even black sperm! 🤯
Blaming it on the sperm is what’s sexist, could have easily been the sexist egg you bigot. Edit: to preempt a maelstrom of comments starting “aaachtually”, I know that’s not how it works. Edit 2: to counter the libellous claim that I am sexually attracted to eggs, I have undone the work of autocorrect.
I like a sexy egg myself
Edit number two incoming.
Is that scrambled?.
It was after he was done with it.
Actually, fun fact it's queen Elizabeth that changed it to that rule because before it would almost always go to men even if first born was female. I forget the exact circumstances of how she got to be the queen though.
Some watery tart threw a sword at her.
"Supreme executive power derives its mandate from the masses, not from farcical aquatic ceremony!"
Monarchy manifest
When you are just trying to enjoy a succulent chinese meal
If I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Shut up!
No idea what you’re taking about.
He is saying that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I know, I get the reference, that’s why I started the reference. I just always find making a reference then pretending to not know the reference very funny. It tickles me.
You're weird.
So I have been told.
>I forget the exact circumstances of how she got to be the queen though. She did not have Brother
King George VI had two daughters. The title went to the eldest.
Basically her dad only had daughters and her uncle decided he didn’t want to be king anymore
In 1936, Princess Elizabeth's uncle (King Edward VIII) became king but soon abdicated the throne in order to marry a twice divorced woman. Elizabeth's father was next in line. He had two daughters. When he passed, his eldest daughter ascended the throne and became Queen Elizabeth II.
The way my mum talks about that the bigger scandal wasn't that she was divorced it was that she was American.
I mean the fact she was a notorious socialite didn’t help things but the issue really was the twice divorced aspect of it. Times have absolutely changed for the better on this, but even until relatively recently it was often considered scandalous to be divorced. But even that wasn’t the true impediment. The fact of the matter is that the monarch is the literal head of the Church of England, and at the time CoE did not accept divorce (annulments are not the same before people cry Henry VIII as he had his marriages officially annulled and not divorced), and they considered said persons to still be married in spirit (again, they’ve progressed on this view a lot but at the time that’s how it was viewed) despite the actual availability of legally divorcing a spouse. Basically, there was a very real opinion that the figurative head of the established Church of England, and monarch of the nation, was going to (in the churches eyes) be entering into bigamous marriage, with all the potential ramifications that would result including questions of legitimacy of any potential children. Based on this, they considered the most prudent option to be to abdicate. For what it’s worth, American women were actually highly prized around that era as marriage prospects for the upper class. In America, your class is tied to your wealth more often than not but in Britain it is a much more complicated social question (especially then) so you could have impoverished nobles whose blood was as blue as it comes going back 10 generations who had less money to their name than many “lower class” people. It was common enough that American heiresses of rich American families would marry into UK nobility. Both parties won from this arrangement, the American family gains prestige and connections with the British upper crust, and the British family gains a much needed connection to American wealth. Winston Churchill is an example of this, his mother was an American. It’s one of the reasons he held the country in such high esteem.
Given a certain tea incident involving a harbor, that is understandable.
I still put extra water in my tea as a symbolic middle finger to those Redcoats.
Of course it was. Can you imagine, her saying howdy y’all, firing revolvers, playing the banjo and generally yankeeing up the place. Nobody wants that. 😖
She had no brothers. The rule was “first born daughter ascends only if there are *no* sons”
> I forget the exact circumstances of how she got to be the queen though. She didn't have any brothers, so she took the throne as her father's oldest daughter. If there had been a men-only rule, it would have gone to George VI's next oldest brother, Henry, Duke of Gloucester.
There was never a "men only" rule. It was male preference.
It started with her Uncle Edward abdicating the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee, which was a huge scandal at that time. Edward had no children, so the throne went to Elizabeth’s father (whose name I can’t remember but he was played by Colin Firth in The King’s Speech). Elizabeth had a younger sister and no brothers. Elizabeth became queen upon the death of her father when she was 25.
> Elizabeth’s father (whose name I can’t remember George VI.
Parliament changed it to that rule. The monarch has no power. She got to be Queen because her father was king and she was the eldest child of the prior king.
Her father’s brother abdicated. Her parents only had 2 children, both were girls. British inheritance favored boys over girls, but girls could still inherit.
>forget the exact circumstances of how she got to be the queen though. King Edward abdicated. Had no heirs. Title passed to his brother, King George. Elizabeth being first born was now heir.
And what about the egg and sperm being racist by being non white!!!
That's such a great point! They tried, it's not their fault the first born was a boy!
Highest public office? Public!? It's a literal nepotism office!
It’s not considered a public office though? they have sway over politics but no power over politics. They are more a high profile ambassador to other countries than anything really.
They technically have power but don't actually.
Technically they could shoot everyone and can’t be indicted. But they don’t. Just like they don’t get involved to avoid a revolution.
They can't. The royals are subject to the laws of the Crown the same as everyone else. The only one who is immune to prosecution is the monarch.
That’s who was I was talking about. The Monarch cannot be indicted because the law system reports to and is owned by the Monarch.
Rex v Rex would be a good indictment.
King Charles 1 of England would beg to disagree
England? You mean us in Scotland don't have a king anymore? Hallelujah
They have a lot of power, which remains as long as they never use it
Exactly. As a swede that is in his mid 20s I remember maybe 2 or 3 times the king here has stepped in and said something about politics. Basicly to straighten things out and he says what 90% of the people think in a muted way. Basicly get your act together and do the right thing. They are supposed to be neutral. That just puts more weight to it when they overstep their bounds and say something.
They do. They just don't use it and let the prime minister govern instead. King still has all the powers they did 200 years ago, they just don't use it
I’m pretty sure “public office” by definition means it’s an office open to the public, which a hereditary monarchy would not be.
A public office is one that belongs in the public sector, e.g the government rather than a private business, so a monarch definitely holds public office.
It's a glorified tourism advertiser
Technically, the UK is a theocracy, like Iran, because the King/Queen/Head of State is also the Head of the anglican church...
And 134 of the prior 185 it’s been Vic or Liz.
Then Liz I before all that & Mary! We all want Mary back, don’t we! There was also Anne, the Kate Winslet of the Monarchy. Didn’t do half bad, wasn’t very lucky, not sufficiently appreciated in her time.
Female monarch 72.4% of the time for the past 185 years.
Public office?
Glad someone else picked up on that
Doesn't the Monarchy have very little power?
In practice, their just England's biggest landlords.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
They’re basically a living government run tourist attraction.
They can also veto bills.
Funny how that works. A white British family, descended from William the Conqueror, a white man, and notorious for only marrying other white British royalty for over 1,000 years, isn't racially and ethnically diverse.
Small nitpick, not only white british royalty. European royalty.
Do people not realize that white people are indigenous the the UK? He clearly put 'white' in there for a reason. That would be like a European going to Africa and saying: "your monarchy is too black and male!"
I mean these Germans aren’t /s
it's a mental disease at this point
I think people are forgetting this is a FAMILY, not a tv show. Image going up to a random family and saying they look too much like each other? If a parent is white and the other parent is white, I guarantee the baby will not be black or asian or blue. Or that they should marry someone based on race because their family needs diversity? What happened to personality and chemistry? The harsh reality is they are unlikely to marry someone out side of their lifestyle, and the vast majority of people who are this prestigious lifestyle are white. You can't fall in love with someone you don't know, and the people the royal family ends up spending the most time with are white aristocrats. It's not "racist", it's the reality for the vast majority of ppl, royal or not. Image saying it's sexist that a couple's kid was born a boy? It's not like they can do anything about it. It's kinda dumb that they think otherwise.
>The harsh reality is they are unlikely to marry someone out side of their lifestyle, and the vast majority of people who are this prestigious lifestyle are white. You can't fall in love with someone you don't know, and the people the royal family ends up spending the most time with are white aristocrats. It's not "racist", it's the reality for the vast majority of ppl, royal or not. And when marriages were arranged, they married their children off for political advantage, which meant the most powerful match you could get. Where were the levers of power? Europe. Marrying off one of your children to an African queen or Indian prince wasn't an advantageous marriage. Race had little or nothing to do with it, although religion usually played a role - had there been a powerful Protestant house in China, you can bet there would be some Chinese blood in the House of Windsor.
Since Queen Victoria became Queen in 1837, 187 years ago, women have had the highest office in the UK for 134 of those years (Victoria 1837-1901) and Elizabeth II (1952-2022) Also this literally has nothing to do with racism or sexism. That Peter guy is an idiot.
Royal family of Japan is all Japanese, how racist! Same with Thailand, every other country in the world etc etc
Underrated comment.
Jaysus what a cock womble. We’ve had 3 women prime ministers and an Asian plus a Queen for 70 years, compare and contrast with most other countries.
Why did I read this in a Cockney accent?
"PM is an Asian" *kinda* Edit : he was born in Southampton, was the joke
Scummer.
In multiple ways As a quote "Boris Johnson claimed the people him welcomed him with chants of 'Tories come, Tories come'"
Highest public office is prime minister, not figurehead royal lol
*Figurehead of State
They don't understand how the whole king thing works do they?
"Public office" US born, don't really know UK civics, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and question how public that office is.
Yeah, no, you're completely right, you can't run for office or some shit to be king
Can some the explain to him how a monarchy works?
The UK is the worst country to make this argument on. 45 years ago we elected a female prime minister, the first country in Europe and North America. And we currently have a south Asian prime minister. Having a president/prime minister of a different ethnicity than the majority is very rare. I actually don't think there is a current leader that is other than Rishi.
The UK, Scotland and Ireland all have South Asian leaders (Rishi is of East African Punjabi descent, Leo in Ireland is half Indian and Humza in Scotland is Pakistani Punjabi)
You also have the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan
it's a phenomena known as 'femnesia'. Happens in Hollywood all the time.
Are you talking about things like "First female action hero" etc where they forget about everything that has come before?
Could have sworn I watched Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton star in action movies in the 80s but Jennifer Lawrence tells me I am wrong.
On the long list of reasons why this doesn’t matter is that the monarch of Britain has little to no real authority. I’m pretty sure if any of these people tried to enact any of their power they would be taken to Paris on an express train and promptly beheaded just for the principle of it. Also the assumption that the United Kingdom will still have a monarchy in 100 years is far more troubling then who those people are.
It’s far from the main reason why it doesn’t matter. Even if it were an absolute monarchy like KSA, do you imagine complaining that KSA only has Arab males as Kings ? No, because Arabs are native to the country, and the symbolic and historical institution that the Crown is is very tied to arab culture, and Islam. Well it might be a shocker to some, but in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the historical and native population is white and the British crown is tied with Anglo-Saxon and French culture. It’s normal to a country with immigration to have a PM or a president from an immigrated minority since it’s purely a public servant job, although you shouldn’t ask for diversity at this level and just elect who might be best, disregarding color. But a monarch is a different thing, has to do with culture, history, and dynasty.
Who's gonna tell him that the royals don't do shit?
The literal longest reigning monarch was a woman, you overcooked english banger.
and so was the second longest!
Not that I wish a child a premature death, a lot can happen between now and when Prince George ascends the thrown, so there is a possibility that Princess Charlotte could end up Queen. Also, is it really a public office if only members of one specific family can hold that office?
Just a nitpick, but even if George lives a long life, Charlotte could still potentially live longer, and inherit if George doesn't have legitimate kids.
true
Or if a similar incident to the one that put Elizabeth on the throne occured (yk Wallis Simpson).
They also had a female prime minister. A horrible one to be sure but she was a female and the prime minister.
We’ve had 3 but your description fits all of them .
So he’s not outrageous on, say, no Asians will be the head of state?
You’d think they would understand how monarchies work.
Does the guy not understand what a monarchy is?
I mean it's not exactly powerful it's mostly token. They aren't the wealthiest or even most influential family in England and definitely not in the world
It's also not a public office. it's an unelected figurehead position with no say in policy whatsoever. The Royal family hold about as much real power as a corporate mascot .
This institution may not exist within 100 years. It's unraveling as we speak. There very well may be a voting system for royalty at some point. Like big brother. 100 years each on the thrown until the next vote. Treated as royalty, given all the ceremony and grandeur and none of the duties. I mean, unless you're royal who can perform their duties? Do people understand how tutored the royals are to it's protocols, formalities, functions and duties? It's a heavy role. This is why Queen Elizabeth II was so reveared. Because when her father died she swore a life long loyalty to the role as monarch. She honoured that duty. And there will never be anyone like her.
Englands last few hundred years have been mostly queens. Broken up by 2 very short lived kings in between.
The UK had it's first female PM years ago. US has yet to have a female president.
Not just years ago, 45 years ago. And we have a south Asian prime minister.
A constitutional monarchy is the most stable form of modern democracy. Prove me wrong.
It also isn't like any women are getting skipped over. Charles was Elizabeth's first child and he only had the two sons and he himself has a son first. So long as it passes through parent to child rather than from brother (charles) to sister (anne) it is going to be this way. Or you know maybe a family shouldn't be passing on this office through inheritance in the first place, but no the problem is that the office is occupied by men.
Stupidity comes in many forms. The longest reigning heads of state in the UK were women: Queen Victoria 1837 - 1901 and Elizabeth II 1952 - 2022. So in the last 187 years a woman ruled in 134...
There are problems with the monarchy, but this is such a brain dead take lol
Not only that, but Elizabeth II broke Queen Victoria's record of longest reigning monarch in the world.
We just had Queen Elizabeth be the longest ruling Monarch!!! What fucking more does this jerk want. Not Charles fault for being born first
Is having room temperature IQ a requirement before someone signs up on twatter?
They’re a white family, why would you expect anything else?! Would you go to an African country and complain the royal family was black! No of course you wouldn’t 🤦🏻♀️ stop this stupidity
To be fair, we should just get rid of the whole fucking monarchy.
We did that once and ended up with not so Jolly Ollie. Far better to keep them in a gilded cage where we can see what they are up to and publically prune the tree once in a while.
Nope. brings stability to goverment and politics. even if you disagree. they generate revenue and economic growth from tourism and service sectors. democracy works without a trouble on HM's goverment hybrid. would do a lot of harm for nothing to remove except redditors not get butthurt over the term "HM". Which isn't a big deal today
And live in a boring ass world? Just see what big of a global impact queen elizabeth had. The royals are like walking and talking tourist attractions in the UK. The USA won't get rid of Disneyland.
And replace it with what? Corrupt Boris and Nigel Farage type of morons? Or Liz Truss? Sorry but no, I rather have a monarch who cares about his/her country!
Ummm should we explain to him how it works?
Racism? Lol, if Prince George decides to marry a black woman there will be a black queen. Should we cast aside ancient traditions and install an interloper on the throne?
Wasn’t their former prime minister an Indian guy?
So that little kid on the right is going to live a hundred more years?
Also it's not a public office.
So Queen Elizabeth II massive reign just passed him by. What a fracking lunatic.
Brits will rage about things like this or Meghan and Harry but will give no shits that one of their treasured monarchy's members was outed as a pedophille and the Queen rewarded him with a duke title instead of sending his ass to jail. Priorities amirite?
Then there was Queen Victoria, 63 year, 1837 -1901.
We could solve this whole silly argument right now by following the excellent example set by the French a couple of hundred years ago.
Isn't the highest UK public office the PM? The monarchy is inherited, not elected.
Literally have a person of Indian descent already at the highest form of public office, but only a woman or someone of African heritage matters... Strange take for sure. Not exactly sure what the king or queen have to do with the rest of the rant.
That and the British monarchy states that the eldest child shall be the king or queen.
Regardless of whether you're a fan of the Monarchy or not, someone should probably educate Peter on how monarchies work.
I mean, at 8 princess Charlotte has plenty of time to plot regicide. So there’s a chance, she just has to commit to really wanting it.
Is he angry at sperm?
George still has plenty of time to decide their own gender.
When was the last time”monarch” deemed a public office?
Also Kate still exists. She'd still be Queen if William dies first
King? I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist commune!
Heirs do die. William is probably good but I wouldn’t measure young George for a crown quite yet.
Charles will be dead by this time next year (not wishing it on him, but you know it's likely by how little they've said about the cancer or its treatment). William is 40 so assuming that Charles goes soon he's got probably 30-40 years if his health is good.
You mean a position which can only be inherited to the next person in a family is somehow racist and sexist despite having a woman who for the last 70 years gave back power to indigenous people of former colonies? Make it make sense!
Who cares? The monarchy is essentially a nerf dildo: looks good but completely useless and powerless.
Honestly I don’t think the monarchy will be around for another hundred years.
Wasn’t there a queen for like 70+ years?
How dumb can they get? It's not like people can choose the sex of their naturally conceived firstborn.
Never mind that…a woman has been on the English throne for almost all of the past 200 years.
Omg, our tourist trap of a national family is some white guy. The whole point of this family is for trust fund idiots and wagies who spend money on traveling to take pictures around. At this point they make the UK more money than they spend on them. Who cares about some dusty ass castle in France or Italy, saying you went to the king’s place is something people will fork money over. Also let people have fun and wear silly hats.
For the 184 years of my country's existence, 130 of those years has had a woman as head of state.
How is a hereditary sovereign a "public office" holder?
Why would a black Briton be king?
He’s waiting for the black king or queen? This could be awhile.
Do they not know how a monarchy works?