this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
1187 points (99.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
5467 readers
3338 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is Charles III really that unpopular? My impression is that most people regard as him some mildly interesting oddity at best. Compare that to Charles II and his constant clashes with the English Parliament...
I don't know if he's specifically unpopular, but I think the idea of a monarchy, especially one that's mostly there for show and takes up a ton of resources every year, isn't very popular anymore.
He's too old to be relatable, too young to be a seemingly eternal fixture like Elizabeth was, the Diana stuff made him seem like a cunt, outside that, he's weird, disconnected, and unlikeable, he's got weird notions about things like homeopathy... Basically, he's most of the worst elements of the aristocracy rolled together in an environment where living standards for the average Briton are rapidly and visibly backsliding.
William is younger, more relatable, and less outwardly elitist - he'd be far more popular.
The Crown estate actually nets a large profit each year, hundreds of millions pounds... You could argue that it's functionally owned by the nation, but the assets being held at arm's length prevent them from being plundered for short term gains.
Well he is the 6th on the list of positively viewed Royals and one of the people above him is dead. I will let you decide what that really means. https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all
On any list of royals, most of them will be dead.
Sounds like you've got a plan.
I mean, the list of living royals is also a list of royals, where that rule certainly does not apply
They're English which means they're dead inside.
just wait
Not sure if 8% for Andrew should make me lose or restore my faith in British humanity...
Don't forget to knock 4 or 5% off to account for the Lizardman Constant!
Probably don't know about the allegations or confused Andrew with another royal.
Some people don't really watch the news or keep up with that kind of thing.
I do kind of wonder sometimes how people in the UK and the other countries that technically follow the british monarchy feel about him, do they actually care much about the tradition or symbolism of their monarchy these days seeing as they essentially exist as a generally powerless state-ordained celebrity, or is the tradition of it still popular? From my perspective as someone in the US, it feels so weird to consider the British monarchy outside the context of Elizabeth II that it honestly feels like it ought to have just died with her, even though I know thats not how monarchies work. Growing up she seemed just like some interesting anachronism the brits had where they used her as a national symbol, but the idea of the thing keeping going with new people in the modern day just feels silly at some level, like its a thing whose time has long since passed.
It's kinda like when the President pardons a turkey at Thanksgiving. It's silly isn't it? Why do people in the US keep on doing that? Why not get rid of this silly tradition?
Because meh, whatever, some people like it so who cares. Right?
That's the monarchy for most people. Just some silly tradition. Some people like it. Eliminating it would make a lot of people upset and what real change would that accomplish?
Here in Canada we'd have to get the Federal government and all the Provincial governments to agree (which never happens), probably have to have a referendum argue over what role a new head of state would have and all that for what? We could devote the same time and energy into getting agreement on something that would have a real world effect.
It's a bit of a litmus test too. If someone is talking on and on about how important it is to do away with ending the tradition of pardoning turkeys, you kinda know this person doesn't have any major problems in their life, right? Like if that's the biggest problem they have with how things are being run, they probably have things pretty good.
Same goes for the monarchy. If someone is going on about how important to remove the monarchy they probably have things pretty good.
Also I think some people are just subservient types. In every country there's going to be some people that feel the need to show their patriotism by expressing their loyalty to someone. And for some reason they need it to be someone that was born into a life of privilege and surrounds themself with gold. Best to give these people an outlet for that which is someone that isn't allowed to involve themselves with politics. Could you imagine what it would be like if people were irrationally loyal to a guy that was born into a life of privilege and surrounded himself with gold and that person was involved in politics? That's something that could cause problems.
The US has a First Lady, First Family, First Dog, etc. It's essentially a royal family. I can probably name like ten First Ladies of the US. I can name only two wives of Prime Ministers of my country. Because the Prime Minister's family isn't a thing we care about. That's his business. Did Justin Trudeau get a divorce? Maybe, I dunno, I don't care. He's just a guy and if doesn't do his job right we'll vote the bastard out. No sentimentality about the PM, he's just some politician and is easily interchangeable with some other politician at any time. PM is just a job. If anyone feels the need for a First Family kind of thing... that's what the Royal Family is for.
But bottom line is, it mostly doesn't matter. Some people like it. I guess it's kinda fun to have Kings and Queens and Princes and Princesses and stuff. So whatever.
However, Australian's have actual beef for the monarchy overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing the opposition.
The fact the opposition were the conservatives was not a coincidence.
Republic here we come babayyy. (Assuming Labor wins the next election and the conservatives don't manage to use the Murdoch propaganda machine to get us to vote against it).
The transition from Elizabeth to Charles has created a life more attention for the monarchy. Many people who previously didn’t have an opinion on either Charles or the monarchy itself as an institution now have one, and for many it’s negative.
That said, the monarchy is really not seen as a political priority in the UK. Most people have far more pressing political concerns, and so long as Charles III is able to avoid too much (additional) controversy that probably won’t change any time soon.
English Parliament? Did you mean the unified British one, or did England finally get their own devolved Parliament?
We're talking end of the 17th century here, Things were a bit different.
Ok, I thought they were talking about present day.
Well if they could get this one beheaded as well, that would be great.
The beheaded one was Charles I.
Ah right. Let's hope it's one of those things that skips a "generation" then.