Updating Gov.uk’s crown(insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk)
insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk
Updating Gov.uk’s crown
https://insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk/2024/02/19/updating-gov-uks-crown/
190 comments
"world oldest democracies" - Demos kratos (people's doings/things - old Greek) By definition, our democracy is not that old. When the old Greeks were toying with funky governmental regimes, Britons lived in tribal/family units, with some nascent petty kingdoms.
The UK is a bit odd, even compared to the rest of the world! There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and around 10 other monarchies have the same King Charles. He is also the senior person for several other territories such as the Isle of Man, Channel Isles and others. Each of those have some pretty impressive titles for him to hold.
The role of "constitutional monarch" here isn't precisely defined but it is based on precedent which basically means if it worked before and no one complained too much then that's the way forward. Our legal system largely works like that too but with a bit more introspection.
The King does have a form of absolute power but only on the understanding that it is never used. Its not quite that simple but it is!
Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government. That influence is documented/reported on.
The UK is a bit odd, even compared to the rest of the world! There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and around 10 other monarchies have the same King Charles. He is also the senior person for several other territories such as the Isle of Man, Channel Isles and others. Each of those have some pretty impressive titles for him to hold.
The role of "constitutional monarch" here isn't precisely defined but it is based on precedent which basically means if it worked before and no one complained too much then that's the way forward. Our legal system largely works like that too but with a bit more introspection.
The King does have a form of absolute power but only on the understanding that it is never used. Its not quite that simple but it is!
Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government. That influence is documented/reported on.
Speaking of odd monarchies:
Andorra is a "Unitary parliamentary diarchic constitutional co principality"
The two co-princes are:
1. Bishop of Urgell 2. King of France
Since there is no longer a king in France, the role of the second co-prince is taken by whoever is the president of France.
In other words the president of France becomes a prince of another state upon election in France.
It is an elected monarch but since people in Andorra don't get to vote in France, it's not an elected monarch elected in Andorra.
That's quite weird.
Andorra is a "Unitary parliamentary diarchic constitutional co principality"
The two co-princes are:
1. Bishop of Urgell 2. King of France
Since there is no longer a king in France, the role of the second co-prince is taken by whoever is the president of France.
In other words the president of France becomes a prince of another state upon election in France.
It is an elected monarch but since people in Andorra don't get to vote in France, it's not an elected monarch elected in Andorra.
That's quite weird.
It's not weird. It's a tax haven for the elites. And cheap duty-free ski resort for the wealthy. Do you think Andorra, Monaco, Leichtenstein, ... (even Luxembourg) ... would continue to exist in W. Europe if that were not the case?
Andorra is uniquely interesting for me because of this weird "co-prince is a an elected president of another country" aspect.
I don't think that having that feature is necessary nor brings any advantage for it being a duty-free ski resort and tax haven for the elites.
In fact other tax-havens exist which have normal monarchs.
Why do you think Andorra is not weird?
I don't think that having that feature is necessary nor brings any advantage for it being a duty-free ski resort and tax haven for the elites.
In fact other tax-havens exist which have normal monarchs.
Why do you think Andorra is not weird?
All Europe was previously 'weird' by today's standards, until big empires invaded everywhere, and drew previously 'weird' places into their states. The strange rules that you claim are 'weird' were the norm until very recently, and the only reason certain exceptions still exist, is because, and only because, they benefit the current elites.
The monarchies married off their children to make claim over other countries. Philip II of Spain thought he ruled Britain because he married Bloody Mary, who was the daughter of a Spanish princess.
The Habsburgs were an inbred dynasty that ruled various non-contiguous parts of Europe, in a totally 'weird' way, for random reasons (Swiss nationhood is based on rejecting them). Naples and Barcelona were once part of the same 'country'. Spain ruled the Netherlands!
The Norman (Scandi Viking) dynasties in Normandy France, and yes in Kiev, and can-you-believe-it Sicily ( Roger of Sicily is so Monty Python )? Andalusia in S. Spain is named after the Vandals from beyond E. Europe, who sacked Rome and also invaded Sicily (who hasn't).
The British royal family is mostly German. Even 'Prince Philip of Greece', husband of QE II, was a Prince of Greece, born in recently-British Corfu (who hasn't invaded Corfu?), without a single drop of Greek blood. He was mostly German, with an admixture of Danish and Russian.
What about Monaco, and San Marino, and Leichtenstein, the Vatican (ex Papal States), and Konigsburg (all that Knights Templar stuff, Memelland, Kaliningrad and now still preposterously Russian).
Belgium literally invented in 1839 Treaty of London, half Flemish, half French, with the bitter pip of Brussels in the middle. [Interestingly, the Treaty of London [1] is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Belgium [2]! Some trolls from the EU have been busy whitewashing history :]
Italy only unified in 1861, always 'weird' before that (but still contains San Marino and The Vatican).
Germany only unified in 1871, always 'weird' before that, with hundreds of petty states, many non-contiguous. The British royal family is from Hanover, Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. It alienated the US colony and is still in (constitutional) power in the UK.
The EU formulated in 1993 (Maastricht) but in its present form only from 2009 (Lisbon) minus UK (2016). A weird mixture of monarchies, democracies and rule by un-elected elites. Let's see how long it lasts... (TBC)
The little remaining statelets are only allowed to continue their independence because they benefit the current elites (like Switzerland benefitted the Nazis).
If you think Andorra is weird and interesting, it's only because you have not studied enough history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)
... not mentioned in ...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium
The monarchies married off their children to make claim over other countries. Philip II of Spain thought he ruled Britain because he married Bloody Mary, who was the daughter of a Spanish princess.
The Habsburgs were an inbred dynasty that ruled various non-contiguous parts of Europe, in a totally 'weird' way, for random reasons (Swiss nationhood is based on rejecting them). Naples and Barcelona were once part of the same 'country'. Spain ruled the Netherlands!
The Norman (Scandi Viking) dynasties in Normandy France, and yes in Kiev, and can-you-believe-it Sicily ( Roger of Sicily is so Monty Python )? Andalusia in S. Spain is named after the Vandals from beyond E. Europe, who sacked Rome and also invaded Sicily (who hasn't).
The British royal family is mostly German. Even 'Prince Philip of Greece', husband of QE II, was a Prince of Greece, born in recently-British Corfu (who hasn't invaded Corfu?), without a single drop of Greek blood. He was mostly German, with an admixture of Danish and Russian.
What about Monaco, and San Marino, and Leichtenstein, the Vatican (ex Papal States), and Konigsburg (all that Knights Templar stuff, Memelland, Kaliningrad and now still preposterously Russian).
Belgium literally invented in 1839 Treaty of London, half Flemish, half French, with the bitter pip of Brussels in the middle. [Interestingly, the Treaty of London [1] is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Belgium [2]! Some trolls from the EU have been busy whitewashing history :]
Italy only unified in 1861, always 'weird' before that (but still contains San Marino and The Vatican).
Germany only unified in 1871, always 'weird' before that, with hundreds of petty states, many non-contiguous. The British royal family is from Hanover, Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. It alienated the US colony and is still in (constitutional) power in the UK.
The EU formulated in 1993 (Maastricht) but in its present form only from 2009 (Lisbon) minus UK (2016). A weird mixture of monarchies, democracies and rule by un-elected elites. Let's see how long it lasts... (TBC)
The little remaining statelets are only allowed to continue their independence because they benefit the current elites (like Switzerland benefitted the Nazis).
If you think Andorra is weird and interesting, it's only because you have not studied enough history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)
... not mentioned in ...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium
P.S. That's just Europe, don't get me started on the Middle East.
Who hasn't invaded Syria!?
Obviously the Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Macedonians (Greeks), Romans, Arabs, Crusaders (English, French, Germans), Turks and a few flavors of Mongols, have been-there-done-that-got-the-tshirt, but even Australia has invaded Damascus (1918). Then the French shelled them to get it back - you could not make it up! Israel almost got there in 1973 and is still bombing it today.
Who hasn't invaded Syria!?
Obviously the Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Macedonians (Greeks), Romans, Arabs, Crusaders (English, French, Germans), Turks and a few flavors of Mongols, have been-there-done-that-got-the-tshirt, but even Australia has invaded Damascus (1918). Then the French shelled them to get it back - you could not make it up! Israel almost got there in 1973 and is still bombing it today.
>The King does have a form of absolute power but only on the understanding that it is never used. Its not quite that simple but it is!
Didn't it come out recently that Queen Elizabeth was actually putting her thumb on the scales for decades to get royal opt-outs for all sorts of random laws? (including, most egregiously, anti-discrimination law)
Regardless, your King was also having protesters jailed for holding blank signs under the suspicion that they might write something republican[0] on it. And there's that video of Irish soccer hooligans chanting "Lizzie's in a box" during a minute of silence they did for Queen Elizabeth. Not exactly something that happens in a country with "another governor".
[0] Americans: no I don't mean the GOP
Didn't it come out recently that Queen Elizabeth was actually putting her thumb on the scales for decades to get royal opt-outs for all sorts of random laws? (including, most egregiously, anti-discrimination law)
Regardless, your King was also having protesters jailed for holding blank signs under the suspicion that they might write something republican[0] on it. And there's that video of Irish soccer hooligans chanting "Lizzie's in a box" during a minute of silence they did for Queen Elizabeth. Not exactly something that happens in a country with "another governor".
[0] Americans: no I don't mean the GOP
Not exactly.
Protestors were arrested for holding “Not my king” signs, so they later adopted blank signs as a symbol of free speech.
I think the football fans you’re referring to were supporters of Shamrock Rovers, a team from South Dublin.
The Republic of Ireland is a separate country, with no monarchy and no ties to the British monarchy since the formation of the Irish Free State in the early 1920’s.
There were however reports of Dundee United fans singing the same chant. Dundee is in Scotland which does share the Monarch, so that would support your point better.
Protestors were arrested for holding “Not my king” signs, so they later adopted blank signs as a symbol of free speech.
I think the football fans you’re referring to were supporters of Shamrock Rovers, a team from South Dublin.
The Republic of Ireland is a separate country, with no monarchy and no ties to the British monarchy since the formation of the Irish Free State in the early 1920’s.
There were however reports of Dundee United fans singing the same chant. Dundee is in Scotland which does share the Monarch, so that would support your point better.
> your King was also having protesters jailed for holding blank signs
He was not personally doing this. The decision to arrest protesters comes down to the police present at the time, and I believe there was no arrest in the case to which you are referring. Specifically a single person holding a blank sign outside of parliament who was approached and questioned by a police officer but not arrested. I believe there where also subsequent protests involving blank signs, but no arrests for those either.
It always shocks me how readily people from other countries take a republican position in matters which really do not concern them. The right to protest in the UK has been degraded as a direct result of our elected government, rather than because of some nebulous power held by the king.
He was not personally doing this. The decision to arrest protesters comes down to the police present at the time, and I believe there was no arrest in the case to which you are referring. Specifically a single person holding a blank sign outside of parliament who was approached and questioned by a police officer but not arrested. I believe there where also subsequent protests involving blank signs, but no arrests for those either.
It always shocks me how readily people from other countries take a republican position in matters which really do not concern them. The right to protest in the UK has been degraded as a direct result of our elected government, rather than because of some nebulous power held by the king.
Ultimately our elected representatives can always overrule the monarchy though, since parliamentary sovereignty trumps all. It might involve dissolving the government, but ultimately parliament would win.
You could obviously make the case that the monarch has unfair influence, but at the end of the day they still don’t have absolute power in any real sense.
You could obviously make the case that the monarch has unfair influence, but at the end of the day they still don’t have absolute power in any real sense.
If that's true, parliament seemingly doesn't want to win.
The monarch is excluded from environmental law, inheritance tax, heck they can even racially discriminate in hiring. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
The monarch is excluded from environmental law, inheritance tax, heck they can even racially discriminate in hiring. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
> If that's true, parliament seemingly doesn't want to win.
Aside from the Tories largely being aligned with the idea that you shouldn't be bound by environmental law (see sewage dumping), have to pay inheritance tax (they're considering scrapping it as an election boost), or not discriminate racially (pick whatever policy you want here), the kind of people who support the monarchy also tend to be rabid Tories - exactly the kind of people you don't want to antagonise if you want to stay in power.
A Corbyn government might well have gone against the monarchy. I can't see Starmer doing it, though.
Aside from the Tories largely being aligned with the idea that you shouldn't be bound by environmental law (see sewage dumping), have to pay inheritance tax (they're considering scrapping it as an election boost), or not discriminate racially (pick whatever policy you want here), the kind of people who support the monarchy also tend to be rabid Tories - exactly the kind of people you don't want to antagonise if you want to stay in power.
A Corbyn government might well have gone against the monarchy. I can't see Starmer doing it, though.
> I can't see Starmer doing it, though.
Remind me again: what does the 'K' in 'KC' stand for?
Also: whose "loyal opposition" is it that Starmer leads?
Remind me again: what does the 'K' in 'KC' stand for?
Also: whose "loyal opposition" is it that Starmer leads?
> Ultimately our elected representatives can always overrule the monarchy though, since parliamentary sovereignty trumps all.
Formally, it's a lot more complicated and weird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament
Formally, it's a lot more complicated and weird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament
The Home Secretary via the police used their anti protest laws to remove the Republican protests, in like with what the majority of the country (or at least the majority of the supporters of the current government) wanted.
Brenda may have had some influence over laws, but nothing compared to the influence normal political lobbyists and donors of the governments party have.
Brenda may have had some influence over laws, but nothing compared to the influence normal political lobbyists and donors of the governments party have.
If you would go by "what the majority wants", you could completely forget free speech, and the rights of most minorities too (and I'm not only referring to the UK, but to most of the world).
Like most contemporary free speech advocates, the current conservative government only advocates for free speech for those whose views align with their own.
They’ve been enacting laws to restrict protest and strikes, stripping funding from media organisations that dare to criticise it and making it harder for young people to vote.
They’ve been enacting laws to restrict protest and strikes, stripping funding from media organisations that dare to criticise it and making it harder for young people to vote.
Not everyone shares the views on freedom of speech that the US has. For example holocaust denial in Germany, or corporate donations, attack adverts, libel laws, Nor do many countries share the view on the same limits that the US does.
Theres a somewhat arrogant view amongst Americans that their view on what does and dies not count as freedom of speech is the only view.
Picketing funerals with hate speech is not wanted in many counties for example. Waving the flags of terrorist groups and calling for the extermination of a people isn’t wanted in many countries.
Theres a somewhat arrogant view amongst Americans that their view on what does and dies not count as freedom of speech is the only view.
Picketing funerals with hate speech is not wanted in many counties for example. Waving the flags of terrorist groups and calling for the extermination of a people isn’t wanted in many countries.
American here, I think you might be slightly off. The views of Americans as to what constitutes free speech are different than what the 1st Amendment actually says and what SCOTUS is willing to extend it to. There are very few people who look at the reasoning in, say, McCutcheon v. FEC, and say "yes, this totally improves free speech". They look at it and say "this is legalizing bribery and calling it free speech".
Donald Trump literally campaigned on "opening up our libel laws" so he could sue the shit out of anyone who accurately reported his net wealth. The crowd ate it up.
People like the Westboro Baptist Church aren't exactly loved either. In fact, they're a meme. We make fun of them. I'm sure there's a lot of Americans who would love the idea of banning them, and there's groups of bikers who go around running their bikes to shout over them and thus censor them.
America's reputation for free speech extremism comes from the ACLU, which up until recently was the sort of legal nonprofit that would literally sue for the free speech rights of Nazis, a group of people who explicitly reject freedom of speech. They've backed off on this only because it blew up in their faces with the Unite the Right rally.
My personal belief, probably not shared by all Americans and definitely not shared by HN, is that Germany's laws banning Holocaust denial actually improve freedom of speech. More generally, political speech that calls for censorship needs to be treated the same as actual laws that ban speech - i.e. we need to censor them. I mention HN because a lot of tech enthusiast viewpoints are influenced by the EFF, which is run by people who think censorship is just spicy packet loss. Those viewpoints here are actually rather extreme even by American standards.
Donald Trump literally campaigned on "opening up our libel laws" so he could sue the shit out of anyone who accurately reported his net wealth. The crowd ate it up.
People like the Westboro Baptist Church aren't exactly loved either. In fact, they're a meme. We make fun of them. I'm sure there's a lot of Americans who would love the idea of banning them, and there's groups of bikers who go around running their bikes to shout over them and thus censor them.
America's reputation for free speech extremism comes from the ACLU, which up until recently was the sort of legal nonprofit that would literally sue for the free speech rights of Nazis, a group of people who explicitly reject freedom of speech. They've backed off on this only because it blew up in their faces with the Unite the Right rally.
My personal belief, probably not shared by all Americans and definitely not shared by HN, is that Germany's laws banning Holocaust denial actually improve freedom of speech. More generally, political speech that calls for censorship needs to be treated the same as actual laws that ban speech - i.e. we need to censor them. I mention HN because a lot of tech enthusiast viewpoints are influenced by the EFF, which is run by people who think censorship is just spicy packet loss. Those viewpoints here are actually rather extreme even by American standards.
>There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs.
Holding many titles in itself isn't strange, it's actually normal. Yes, that includes holding multiple King titles. If a noble holds multiple titles of the same rank, the most prestigious of them (in this case King of the United Kingdom) is the one preferred for general use.
>Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government.
The idea is that the King is granted the authority to govern from God, and the King's government aids him in putting that authority into practice.
Remember that the King of the United Kingdom is also the leader ("Supreme Governor") of the Church of England, and elsewhere kings are usually coronated by the Pope of the Catholic Church. That is all to signify the King is a representative of God, acting in God's stead because God is busy with godly matters I suppose.
Holding many titles in itself isn't strange, it's actually normal. Yes, that includes holding multiple King titles. If a noble holds multiple titles of the same rank, the most prestigious of them (in this case King of the United Kingdom) is the one preferred for general use.
>Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government.
The idea is that the King is granted the authority to govern from God, and the King's government aids him in putting that authority into practice.
Remember that the King of the United Kingdom is also the leader ("Supreme Governor") of the Church of England, and elsewhere kings are usually coronated by the Pope of the Catholic Church. That is all to signify the King is a representative of God, acting in God's stead because God is busy with godly matters I suppose.
> [...] and elsewhere kings are usually coronated by the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Only in catholic countries. I haven't looked up the numbers, but I assume less than half of remaining monarchies are catholic. Mostly because we have a number of protestant monarchies (like the Netherlands and Denmark), and we have plenty of monarchies that aren't Christian at all (like Thailand or Malaysia or Saudi Arabia).
Only in catholic countries. I haven't looked up the numbers, but I assume less than half of remaining monarchies are catholic. Mostly because we have a number of protestant monarchies (like the Netherlands and Denmark), and we have plenty of monarchies that aren't Christian at all (like Thailand or Malaysia or Saudi Arabia).
That's why I specified "usually", not all kingdoms are Catholic or even Christian but I would presume most would have similar concepts of deriving authority from somewhere to claim their blood is blue.
Oh, you meant it as an example. OK.
I'm not sure, but what you claim seems plausible enough.
Republics typically also make these kinds of claims to legitimize their leaders' claims to power. They usually invoke the wishes of the people or even a 'general will' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will).
I'm not sure, but what you claim seems plausible enough.
Republics typically also make these kinds of claims to legitimize their leaders' claims to power. They usually invoke the wishes of the people or even a 'general will' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will).
Authority to govern "on loan" from God, so to speak, is not a right, so this reminds the monarch he is only a sort of regent or deputy, if you will. (Recall John 19:11.)
I think there's a bit in Yes, Minister about how the more you're doing something in government the less you say about it, and the less you're doing the more you say.
What does that mean? Are you suggesting that active government work is often done quietly, while inactivity can lead to more public discussion to give the appearance of action?
If you eat when you're hungry, eating and being hungry aren't the opposite of each other.
> I find the idea that (at least part of) the government identity is tied the "personal authority" of the ruler a bit bizarre
Our semi-informal UK constitution distinguishes between 'the Crown' (the post) and 'the Monarch' (the individual who currently occupies that post). The parliamentary role is defined in terms of the Crown, not the specific Monarch. This is why we can have an immediate transition of power when the Monarch dies, following our rules of succession.
Our semi-informal UK constitution distinguishes between 'the Crown' (the post) and 'the Monarch' (the individual who currently occupies that post). The parliamentary role is defined in terms of the Crown, not the specific Monarch. This is why we can have an immediate transition of power when the Monarch dies, following our rules of succession.
Well, over the last hundred years we've gone from "the divine right of the King to rule his subjects" to "the Monarchy brings in money by attracting tourists to the UK". Who knows where we'll be in another hundred years.
There is more to the British monarchy than tourism, but even so, it is worth noting (emphasis mine):
'This is the doctrine of "the divine right of kings". According to it, in its rigour, in a State once monarchical, monarchy is forever the only lawful government, and all authority is vested in the monarch, to be communicated by him, to such as he may select for the time being to share his power. This "divine right of kings" (very different from the doctrine that all authority, whether of king or of republic, is from God), has never been sanctioned by the Catholic Church. At the Reformation it assumed a form exceedingly hostile to Catholicism, monarchs like Henry VIII, and James I, of England, claiming the fullness of spiritual as well as of civil authority, and this in such inalienable possession that no jot or tittle of prerogative could ever pass away from the Crown. [...] Suárez argued against James I that spiritual authority is not vested in the Crown, and that even civil authority is not the immediate gift of God to the king, but is given by God to the people collectively, and by them bestowed on the monarch, according to the theory of the Roman lawyers above mentioned, and according to Aristotle and St. Thomas.' [0]
[0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm
'This is the doctrine of "the divine right of kings". According to it, in its rigour, in a State once monarchical, monarchy is forever the only lawful government, and all authority is vested in the monarch, to be communicated by him, to such as he may select for the time being to share his power. This "divine right of kings" (very different from the doctrine that all authority, whether of king or of republic, is from God), has never been sanctioned by the Catholic Church. At the Reformation it assumed a form exceedingly hostile to Catholicism, monarchs like Henry VIII, and James I, of England, claiming the fullness of spiritual as well as of civil authority, and this in such inalienable possession that no jot or tittle of prerogative could ever pass away from the Crown. [...] Suárez argued against James I that spiritual authority is not vested in the Crown, and that even civil authority is not the immediate gift of God to the king, but is given by God to the people collectively, and by them bestowed on the monarch, according to the theory of the Roman lawyers above mentioned, and according to Aristotle and St. Thomas.' [0]
[0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm
Hundred years?
A hundred years ago King George V inherited the throne at a politically turbulent time, with the House of Lords exerting pressure to bend the King to their ends and grant a dissolution .. very much the political tail wagging the King dog rather than vice versa.
Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.
A hundred years ago King George V inherited the throne at a politically turbulent time, with the House of Lords exerting pressure to bend the King to their ends and grant a dissolution .. very much the political tail wagging the King dog rather than vice versa.
Quite apart from Magna Carta, the outcome of the Civil War determined very effectively whether the British Monarch had divine right to rule. In the negative.
With a regular reminder to the reigning monarch just outside the House of Commons in Westminster, a statue of Oliver Cromwell. Apart from the awful, awful acts that he commissioned against the people of Ireland, he also ensured that the concept of parliamentary supremacy against a sitting king that ignored or agitated against it, was demonstrated in a fairly direct way, the execution of King Charles I (there’s a statue of Charles I across the way, just to make sure you don’t miss the message)
The UK is a "(democratic) parliamentary constitutional monarchy", which makes it a democracy, but importantly it's still a monarchy as well. Being one thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other, even if one must limit the other.
The comment you replied to was aware of this.
Most of the time, the laws and bureaucracy in the UK refers to 'The Crown' instead of to the king or queen personally. And ahmedfromtunis expressed surprise that this is not universal (but only 'most of the time').
Most of the time, the laws and bureaucracy in the UK refers to 'The Crown' instead of to the king or queen personally. And ahmedfromtunis expressed surprise that this is not universal (but only 'most of the time').
My dream is that this century we will see the end to the British monarchy. These old symbols of rule must see an end if we hope to continue humanity’s rule towards more democratic rule. (I say this knowing full well that “democracy” is hardly what we make of it even in the most famous democracies like the USA, and we still have so much work to do.)
I hope the British monarchy (and others like the Japanese monarchy) continue for time immemorial.
Monarchs these days are (fortunately) more benevolent than ye olde days, and are looking to become bastions of calm and sanity in an era when democracy (FSVO democracy) keeps roiling shit up.
I say that as an American too, long live the King.
Monarchs these days are (fortunately) more benevolent than ye olde days, and are looking to become bastions of calm and sanity in an era when democracy (FSVO democracy) keeps roiling shit up.
I say that as an American too, long live the King.
In what way does this old man with too much land bring calm and sanity to Britain? His resources should be given to the people as museums, there is no need for the monarchy to continue to profit off of land and wealth that should belong to the people.
Having a monarch makes it harder for the elected leader to run amok. Compare the UK with other near powers that got rid of their monarchs - Russia ended up with Stalin and Putin, France got Napoleon, Germany got Hitler.
It's a bit like Chesterton's fence - don't remove it until you understand why it's there.
Another issue with the idea we should scrap the monarchy in the name of democracy is the actual democratic voters are strongly in favour of keeping it.
It's a bit like Chesterton's fence - don't remove it until you understand why it's there.
Another issue with the idea we should scrap the monarchy in the name of democracy is the actual democratic voters are strongly in favour of keeping it.
I agree. Having a hereditary monarch is evil. It's that simple. Doesn't matter if it's "symbolic", it's an evil symbol of oppression.
Also, it's not symbolic. The king has to approve all laws, for example. The whole thing is disgraceful and has no place in modern society.
Also, it's not symbolic. The king has to approve all laws, for example. The whole thing is disgraceful and has no place in modern society.
The power of monarchy has been steadily whittled away in the UK since 1066.
The last bill that was refused assent was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.
In Australia, my country, presenting law for Royal Assent is a rubber stamp, a symbolic act that transcends the current elected government houses.
Should "Royal Assent" be refused by the Crowns agent in Australia you'd see the country exit, the Crown is there for show, not to get involved or to meddle with the work of the elected Government.
I suspect Canada, New Zealand, et al are similar.
You could always point to an instance in which the Crown refused Royal Assent if you'd care to.
The last bill that was refused assent was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.
In Australia, my country, presenting law for Royal Assent is a rubber stamp, a symbolic act that transcends the current elected government houses.
Should "Royal Assent" be refused by the Crowns agent in Australia you'd see the country exit, the Crown is there for show, not to get involved or to meddle with the work of the elected Government.
I suspect Canada, New Zealand, et al are similar.
You could always point to an instance in which the Crown refused Royal Assent if you'd care to.
And even that Bill was refused assent as Parliament asked Queen Anne to do so as they wanted to make some changes to it.
As I said, the symbol itself is evil. But it seems you agree Royal Assent is legally required. It's a monarchy. Don't gaslight people into thinking it isn't.
It's a sham monarchy.
Don't gaslight people into thinking it has any real power.
The King has to rubber stamp assent, albeit with bloody ink pen, but it's symbolic like any other bit of pagentry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Encm187scA
The power it once had has been whittled away to F-all.
Don't gaslight people into thinking it has any real power.
The King has to rubber stamp assent, albeit with bloody ink pen, but it's symbolic like any other bit of pagentry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Encm187scA
The power it once had has been whittled away to F-all.
Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law.You are intentionally ignoring my point about how the symbolic nature itself is evil. It is unconscionable to have a monarchy as a symbol of a country! A monarchy is an affront to human decency; it's absurd.
And I do not agree with your assessment that the king has no real power. A gentleman's agreement not to be a tyrant is not even close to good enough. I don't dispute it would cause lots of drama if the king tried to defy government, but he can do it. The guy is allowed to murder anyone he wants, he has full immunity from criminal prosecution! Is that a symbol worth protecting? No. It should be torn down and cast out.
Any respectable modern system of governance would not want even a whiff of an impression that it was led by a bloodline of kings. Yet, the UK and Commonwealth countries lean into it. A crown is a symbol of oppression. It's disgusting.
And I do not agree with your assessment that the king has no real power. A gentleman's agreement not to be a tyrant is not even close to good enough. I don't dispute it would cause lots of drama if the king tried to defy government, but he can do it. The guy is allowed to murder anyone he wants, he has full immunity from criminal prosecution! Is that a symbol worth protecting? No. It should be torn down and cast out.
Any respectable modern system of governance would not want even a whiff of an impression that it was led by a bloodline of kings. Yet, the UK and Commonwealth countries lean into it. A crown is a symbol of oppression. It's disgusting.
More vacuous posturing.
Btw, a king that misbehaves gravely becomes a tyrant, and if it is prudent, tyrants may be dispatched with a clear conscience.
Btw, a king that misbehaves gravely becomes a tyrant, and if it is prudent, tyrants may be dispatched with a clear conscience.
The argument that a king is good to have is that when a king becomes a tyrant you won’t feel bad about killing him?
I feel for the monarchs themselves. Being in this position is an oppression of the worst kind.
I do too. Not the worst
kind of oppression though, by far.
This is just sentimental fluff. Whatever its weaknesses or aberrations in practice, monarchy is not evil, and you have not even attempted to offer a real reason to think it is. The term "modern society" drips with fallacy.
Ridiculous. It’s evil because it robs the citizens of agency and power, puts arbitrary offspring into absolute power, and creates a caste system.
On the off chance you haven't seen it, GOV.UK design system is pretty good and accessible.
Some institutions in my country (not UK) adopted it as well and I think it was absolutely the right move. Although we don't need the Crown component.
Some institutions in my country (not UK) adopted it as well and I think it was absolutely the right move. Although we don't need the Crown component.
I'd say it's one of the best I've seen in the wild. The way it combines regality, clarity, the right tone (friendly but clear) and visual hierarchy is brilliant and masterful. Everything is well-thought out, accessible, clear, and communicating the right hierarchy, voice and tone.
Their design is great. Ethics a little less so.
They still make extensive use of google-analytics. I don't care how obfuscated google claim to make the data they receive, routinely leaking all online interactions between UK citizens and UK government to a private overseas company is just wrong.
They still make extensive use of google-analytics. I don't care how obfuscated google claim to make the data they receive, routinely leaking all online interactions between UK citizens and UK government to a private overseas company is just wrong.
I doubt it's an ethical choice. Some junior dev in the early days probably just put it in there and now the bureacratic lift required to undo it (and pay for a similar set of analytics instead of getting it subsidized by data harvesting) is just too much.
Google is a public company, isn't it?
Though I assume they are probably dealing with a subsidiary of Google that's officially headquartered in the UK. So it's not an overseas company.
Though I assume they are probably dealing with a subsidiary of Google that's officially headquartered in the UK. So it's not an overseas company.
Private sector, rather than public/state sector. I guess there's ambiguity in the terms here - It's publicly traded, sure, but it's not a government or state-owned entity.
I'm not sure that assumption is particularly valid.
The only response I've ever had from them on the issue was "our contract with google says it gets anonymised". This puts a lot of trust in Google not to use all the tasty data that is being sent, and they made no claims that the data remains in-country or under their control.
I'm not sure that assumption is particularly valid.
The only response I've ever had from them on the issue was "our contract with google says it gets anonymised". This puts a lot of trust in Google not to use all the tasty data that is being sent, and they made no claims that the data remains in-country or under their control.
I'm probably just as skeptical of those pesky private-sector foreigners as you are. But I don't expectations of domestic government-controlled entities being any better.
The UK government can pass laws and use contracts to legally safeguard the data, if they want to.
The UK government can pass laws and use contracts to legally safeguard the data, if they want to.
It's not that I expect government to be better, but I wish it was, and I wish the technical and project people building these systems took this stuff more seriously.
Gov.uk is probably one of the smoothest government websites I've ever seen, even when I used it a decade ago (they had just rebuilt it in Rails and I talked to the team behind it). Very thoughtful people behind it.
Each monarch has their own personal cyper (and this is not just a UK tradition: it's common across Europe and perhaps elsewhere). Linus Boman dives into the history and critiques some of the designs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_ZL7H7WCzM. (He's a graphic designer, and makes excellent videos.)
Using the crown from the monarch's cypher in the government logo is an interesting choice, but I suppose it does make sense. It is, after all, known as His Majesty's Government. But in many other ways, Parliament asserts its independence from the monarchy. Maybe using the mace instead of the crown would have been a good idea?
Using the crown from the monarch's cypher in the government logo is an interesting choice, but I suppose it does make sense. It is, after all, known as His Majesty's Government. But in many other ways, Parliament asserts its independence from the monarchy. Maybe using the mace instead of the crown would have been a good idea?
Parliament is all the players from all 12 teams including all those on the bench who never even played.
Government is the members of the winning team who were on the field when the whistle blew. They get to lift the trophy.
In real competitions the subs get to lift the trophy too so maybe a better analogy is that the UK Parliament is 12 teams, all their subs, the coaching staff, club management, and the people who run the official fan club. A subset of these from the winning club get to lift the “I am the government now” trophy but not all of them do.
Oh, and of course while the Commons are playing [association] football, the Lords are playing charity match celebrity cricket, and yet some of them (e.g David Lord Cameron) get their hands on the FA Cup too.
In the US, by contrast, it’s more like the guy who owns the team is the one who lifts the trophy. They do so by winning a “whose team do you like the most?” competition, all while a separate match with actual players is going on, none of whom will win the executive trophy.
There are also only two official USA Sports League teams but they split into cliques that play together behind the scenes. Kind of like the midfield caucus doing a deal with the forward caucus to give them the ball in exchange for extra oranges at half time.
Government is the members of the winning team who were on the field when the whistle blew. They get to lift the trophy.
In real competitions the subs get to lift the trophy too so maybe a better analogy is that the UK Parliament is 12 teams, all their subs, the coaching staff, club management, and the people who run the official fan club. A subset of these from the winning club get to lift the “I am the government now” trophy but not all of them do.
Oh, and of course while the Commons are playing [association] football, the Lords are playing charity match celebrity cricket, and yet some of them (e.g David Lord Cameron) get their hands on the FA Cup too.
In the US, by contrast, it’s more like the guy who owns the team is the one who lifts the trophy. They do so by winning a “whose team do you like the most?” competition, all while a separate match with actual players is going on, none of whom will win the executive trophy.
There are also only two official USA Sports League teams but they split into cliques that play together behind the scenes. Kind of like the midfield caucus doing a deal with the forward caucus to give them the ball in exchange for extra oranges at half time.
> But in many other ways, Parliament asserts its independence from the monarchy
The implication here is that The Government and The Parliament are the same, which isn’t true. While it’s not quite so delineated as in countries with formally separate executive and legislative, the two are separate entities.
The executive is also commonly called “The Crown”, so it’s an appropriate logo. (Albeit, that’s also a nebulous term.)
The implication here is that The Government and The Parliament are the same, which isn’t true. While it’s not quite so delineated as in countries with formally separate executive and legislative, the two are separate entities.
The executive is also commonly called “The Crown”, so it’s an appropriate logo. (Albeit, that’s also a nebulous term.)
On parliament.uk they use a logo of a crowned portcullis, which apparently is a style that dates back centuries.
>Parliament asserts its independence from the monarchy. Maybe using the mace instead of the crown would have been a good idea?
It does... to an extent. Its official acts, though, are done as King-in-Parliament, and the mace is a symbol of that royal authority under which it meets.
It does... to an extent. Its official acts, though, are done as King-in-Parliament, and the mace is a symbol of that royal authority under which it meets.
the mace is exactly the same as a crown: it represents the monarch's power
they're also literally Crown Jewels, the same as the Imperial State Crown and St. Edmunds Crown
they're also literally Crown Jewels, the same as the Imperial State Crown and St. Edmunds Crown
I suppose it's just what I grew up with, but the old crown seems really iconic to me, while the new one seems really dull and non descript. (I know they're both old but you know what I mean.) It's a pity the king didn't stick with the old one.
In the side by side view, I think the old crown is more easily recognizable. Maybe because it is wider while the newer one is more of a round shape and, at a glance, looks more like a ball.
It looks like Firefox caches the favicon more aggressively that I thought. Even a shift-refresh or explicitly clearing `blog.gov.uk` in the settings doesn't update it.
Got curious, turns out their WordPress theme adds a wild
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/themes/gds-blogs/favicon.ico">
Interesting, good spot. I might try to find a way to notify them, lest someone gets hanged for treason.
You laugh, but then I found this when following a link on the page to learn more about Royal Cyphers...
There are simply thousands of Pillar Boxes across the United Kingdom and the best way to date them is to look at their cypher. This will identify the Monarch that was on the throne during their creation. When the monarch changes, new pillar boxes do not replace old but are added to those in use, and this is why Britain has such an array of boxes.
You will find, however, that in Scotland pillar boxes do not have ‘EIIR’ on them. This is because some Scottish people did not accept Queen Elizabeth as the second monarch of her name, since Queen Elizabeth I was never ruler of Scotland. Earlier pillar boxes with the cypher were vandalised and even blown up, and because of this they instead depict the Scottish Crown.
There are simply thousands of Pillar Boxes across the United Kingdom and the best way to date them is to look at their cypher. This will identify the Monarch that was on the throne during their creation. When the monarch changes, new pillar boxes do not replace old but are added to those in use, and this is why Britain has such an array of boxes.
You will find, however, that in Scotland pillar boxes do not have ‘EIIR’ on them. This is because some Scottish people did not accept Queen Elizabeth as the second monarch of her name, since Queen Elizabeth I was never ruler of Scotland. Earlier pillar boxes with the cypher were vandalised and even blown up, and because of this they instead depict the Scottish Crown.
Related trivia there is that you'll still find some postboxes with royal cypher - usually GR, ER, or VR (George, Edward & Victoria) across Ireland. But painted green.
Are they in use by An Post or just disused relics?
There's apparently some still in use - the oldest still in use is in Kent train station in Cork, which has a 160yo postbox.
They're increasingly rare - which makes sense, given they have to be 100+ years old by definition. But they're out there.
They're increasingly rare - which makes sense, given they have to be 100+ years old by definition. But they're out there.
For cached majesté
I thought the choice of the Tudor Crown was an odd choice for him as the last Charles to wear it met an unpleasant end
(St Edward's Crown just looks better too!)
(St Edward's Crown just looks better too!)
Charles I was a Stuart. Tudors are off the hook for that one at least.
croisillon(1)
I do wonder, with this and lot of other stuff related to the Royals, if this is all just a colossal waste of everyone's time and energy to update all this crap?
Can we not just leave it as is and let people just carry on with stuff that actually - you know - matters? Seriously who cares if the favicon and other trivial little details for the gov.uk website has the wrong diagrammatic interpretation of the currently sitting monarch's crown?! What makes it worse is we will repeat this folly in a couple of years when the current king dies from his illnesses and the new king picks a oh-so-slightly-differntly-shaped-crown.
I would strongly prefer that my (really rather high) tax contributions are spent on meaningful things. Or maybe I am wrong - is his royal highness personally paying for all this? (I doubt it!)
Can we not just leave it as is and let people just carry on with stuff that actually - you know - matters? Seriously who cares if the favicon and other trivial little details for the gov.uk website has the wrong diagrammatic interpretation of the currently sitting monarch's crown?! What makes it worse is we will repeat this folly in a couple of years when the current king dies from his illnesses and the new king picks a oh-so-slightly-differntly-shaped-crown.
I would strongly prefer that my (really rather high) tax contributions are spent on meaningful things. Or maybe I am wrong - is his royal highness personally paying for all this? (I doubt it!)
Branding changes all the time. This is hardly a phenomenon unique to royalty. As for the cost of this, I don't think you'll save very much from your really rather high tax contributions by asking a few people not to change the logo on a website. I find it odd that you take issue with only this form of cultural spending. Did you know some of your taxes also go towards museums and endowments for the arts?
More fundamentally, some of your taxes are always going to go towards things other people want but you don't. For instance roads you won't drive on, or other people's healthcare.
More fundamentally, some of your taxes are always going to go towards things other people want but you don't. For instance roads you won't drive on, or other people's healthcare.
I am happy for my tax to be spent on meaningful, useful things even if I don't get direct benefit from it. But not really happy to do so just because the current royal wants a different crown?! It is so far out of touch with what the little people are dealing with - totally tone deaf.
It's about as tone deaf as spending money preserving a bunch of old stuff that isn't directly useful to anyone nowadays. These critiques apply equally to the monarchy as they do to museums. The fact of the matter remains that changing the logo on a few things has an incalculably small cost and was likely fulfilled by people the government would have on payroll either way.
Extrapolating from your argument, do you think all traditions aught to stop when the economy takes a downturn? It's not as if having a monarchy, or maintaining any of the other traditions, comes at the cost of people being driven to poverty. We have the resources as a society to both provide a decent standard of living for people and to maintain our culture and traditions. It's ridiculous to think that cutting costs on the latter will do any good for the former; it will just free up money to be mismanaged elsewhere, or go on tax cuts for the rich. Your argument here isn't based on actually solving any real problem, just that you don't like the vibes of the situation.
I'll assume, given your high tax bracket, that you also have a high income. If so, it's pretty presumptuous for you to speak on behalf of poor people, who generally seem to quite like the monarchy in my experience. Being so starkly pro-austerity that you won't let them spend a little money on changing a few logos seems exceedingly out of touch, given the decade+ of austerity and cost-cutting that lead us to the current situation.
Extrapolating from your argument, do you think all traditions aught to stop when the economy takes a downturn? It's not as if having a monarchy, or maintaining any of the other traditions, comes at the cost of people being driven to poverty. We have the resources as a society to both provide a decent standard of living for people and to maintain our culture and traditions. It's ridiculous to think that cutting costs on the latter will do any good for the former; it will just free up money to be mismanaged elsewhere, or go on tax cuts for the rich. Your argument here isn't based on actually solving any real problem, just that you don't like the vibes of the situation.
I'll assume, given your high tax bracket, that you also have a high income. If so, it's pretty presumptuous for you to speak on behalf of poor people, who generally seem to quite like the monarchy in my experience. Being so starkly pro-austerity that you won't let them spend a little money on changing a few logos seems exceedingly out of touch, given the decade+ of austerity and cost-cutting that lead us to the current situation.
You are missing the point entirely. This is about vanity from the most privileged person in the country - vanity that we all have to pay for one way or another.
It is entirely pointless that we as a society have to pander to the current monarch's preferred fucking crown, especially when so many people are deciding between feeding themselves or turning the heating on (and other unenviable decisions)
It is entirely pointless that we as a society have to pander to the current monarch's preferred fucking crown, especially when so many people are deciding between feeding themselves or turning the heating on (and other unenviable decisions)
Once again, you are very angry on behalf of people who probably disagree with you about this. I also have to question if you have actually if you've actually seen the change in question. It is the same design with one extra circle added, and the top bits shifted up a little. I could do that in about 5 minutes in photoshop. Tying this to Charles's choice also a bit of a stretch. He probably didn't think about the few places where the crown was shown on its own, since most of the re-branding involves his initials/face which he cannot change. You speak as if everyone in England is being personally subjected to his whims here, when really he made a relatively minor choice based on his tastes (and potentially not wanting to wear his dead mother's hat), which then caused some small changes to logos in other places. Heinz Ketchup is going to have to take the royal seal off the bottles because Charles doesn't like it as much as his mum did. Is this some kind of massive issue as well? Such decisions are made by random people all the time. Someone decided to subject you to a change in the colour of milk bottle caps which is much more impactful and I hardly think you are as angry about that.
I bet you would also like to see the Vatican sell off the art collections of the Vatican Museums and give that money away to the poor.
Being lectured on poverty and charity by a man sitting on a golden throne is a bit grotesque.
It'd be quite ironic if they A/B tested this.
One day I would like us to remove the crown completely.
Crazy when you think about the time and money wasted stupidly because of this, that could have been used to improve public services instead...
In order to do that, I'd need some idea of what it cost. If it's just somebody on salary doing this job instead of some other job, I don't see it making a huge difference. If it's a few days of a designer's time and a few hours of a developer's time, which is what I would think a simple logo swap would be, I doubt that's the difference between functioning public services and a lawless, Mad Max wasteland where people sell their children for canned corn.
I suppose I have some insight into this as I've worked for the public sector in the UK for several years.
The Gov.uk estate is absolutely enormous. There's obviously all the public facing stuff, but many many more internal tools and services too which need updating too. But the change is even bigger than just this, because there's also documents and resources which teams will need to update in the coming weeks also. Additionally guidance needs to be issued across all government departments and although I've not been following this personally I have seen lengthy comms issued about the crown change. There's a huge amount of bureaucracy in the public sector so changes like this are extensively documented and planned by various individuals on 6 figure salaries before teams will even pick up the work.
If I were to guess we're probably talking about a thousand people spending several hours on this at least. That said, for it to be wasteful it would need to be less productive than what people would otherwise be working on. Compared to building stuff that's never used or scraped shortly after building it, this is probably more productive than most things people work on in the public sector.
The Gov.uk estate is absolutely enormous. There's obviously all the public facing stuff, but many many more internal tools and services too which need updating too. But the change is even bigger than just this, because there's also documents and resources which teams will need to update in the coming weeks also. Additionally guidance needs to be issued across all government departments and although I've not been following this personally I have seen lengthy comms issued about the crown change. There's a huge amount of bureaucracy in the public sector so changes like this are extensively documented and planned by various individuals on 6 figure salaries before teams will even pick up the work.
If I were to guess we're probably talking about a thousand people spending several hours on this at least. That said, for it to be wasteful it would need to be less productive than what people would otherwise be working on. Compared to building stuff that's never used or scraped shortly after building it, this is probably more productive than most things people work on in the public sector.
> Compared to building stuff that's never used or scraped shortly after building it, this is probably more productive than most things people work on in the public sector.
That only holds water if this project means that they're never going to work on the never-used or soon-to-be-scrapped project that they'd otherwise be working on if the cypher never needed to be updated.
Ultimately, of course, this project is a tiny rounding error in the government's budget, so it doesn't really matter either way.
That only holds water if this project means that they're never going to work on the never-used or soon-to-be-scrapped project that they'd otherwise be working on if the cypher never needed to be updated.
Ultimately, of course, this project is a tiny rounding error in the government's budget, so it doesn't really matter either way.
Maybe it might look small if you only consider gov.uk websites but what I mean is that it looks like that everything like everywhere will be changed to take that into account:
Police uniforms, mailbox, signs, ...
Police uniforms, mailbox, signs, ...
So, the same as a corporate logo change.
Since corporations seek to maximise profit over anything typically considered solely for the benefit of aesthetics: I guess a precedent exists that the cost can be worthy.
1 logo change on average 3 times every 100 years isn't that much, especially if you compare to basically any corporation outside of Mitsubishi in that time.
Since corporations seek to maximise profit over anything typically considered solely for the benefit of aesthetics: I guess a precedent exists that the cost can be worthy.
1 logo change on average 3 times every 100 years isn't that much, especially if you compare to basically any corporation outside of Mitsubishi in that time.
I'm a republican, but this is an infinitesimally small drop in the ocean of public finances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...
In US they redo branding like this every election.
Exactly, it's not even unique to the monarch in countries like Denmark. Government offices are rebrand, restructured and renamed far more often than the king or queen. The major difference is that the government offices rarely do a slow transition, they change everything at once, rather than just replacing the logo on things like uniforms, tools and buildings when the object needs replacing or refurbishing anyway.
Personally I feel like the rebranding of government office just because some one is "up for a ministerial post" so we need to create one, is far more wasteful.
Personally I feel like the rebranding of government office just because some one is "up for a ministerial post" so we need to create one, is far more wasteful.
"It is the intention that the new cypher and new rendering of the Crown will be introduced gradually, and generally only when equipment or uniforms which bear them needs to be replaced. This will be similar to what happened in the 1950s and 1960s as Queen Elizabeth II's cypher came to replace that of King George VI." (https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/news/item/205...)
It's only stupid if you don't like the monarchy.
I think the vast majority of people in any country would prefer a Head of State that is chosen by popular vote rather than by Royal Sperm.
Changing an icon may cost a bucket, next to nothing, although monarchies are usually very opaque (regardless of what they pretend, we still don't have an account of all European monarchies properties and investments). However, the entire coronation pantomime is bizarre in a country still suffering from the Brexit fiasco.
Changing an icon may cost a bucket, next to nothing, although monarchies are usually very opaque (regardless of what they pretend, we still don't have an account of all European monarchies properties and investments). However, the entire coronation pantomime is bizarre in a country still suffering from the Brexit fiasco.
> I think the vast majority of people in any country would prefer a Head of State that is chosen by popular vote rather than by Royal Sperm.
I think you are very wrong about that. The Danish royal family remains the head of state because no one want any of our politicians to become president. If feels like a nice safety net to have the king above the prime minister, not an effective one, but still. Politicians are short term, think short term and fickle minded, at least the royal family thinks generations ahead.
As long as the royal family is well behaved, polite and appear interested in the people, I think most countries will prefer to keep them as the official, but neutered figure heads.
I think you are very wrong about that. The Danish royal family remains the head of state because no one want any of our politicians to become president. If feels like a nice safety net to have the king above the prime minister, not an effective one, but still. Politicians are short term, think short term and fickle minded, at least the royal family thinks generations ahead.
As long as the royal family is well behaved, polite and appear interested in the people, I think most countries will prefer to keep them as the official, but neutered figure heads.
As an Australian (and for most directly part of the four lions in the UK) the "Head of State" part is viewed as highly symbolic and there's no love at all for having an actual active King or Queen that meddles beyond the purely ceremonial (swearing in new Heads of Government, etc).
Australia barely accepted keeping the former Queen as head of state the last time this went to a referendum, and that was a member of the Royal family who served in WWII driving ambulances in London and stayed a steady constant since.
It's questionable whether there'd be any love for King (formerly known as Prince) Big Ears should it come to a vote again.
The part that is strongly liked is the notion of something constant and greater than day to day government, a sense of continuity of country.
Day to day meddling in details is strictly for the people we elect and hire to debate policy and pass that on to others that enact it.
Australia barely accepted keeping the former Queen as head of state the last time this went to a referendum, and that was a member of the Royal family who served in WWII driving ambulances in London and stayed a steady constant since.
It's questionable whether there'd be any love for King (formerly known as Prince) Big Ears should it come to a vote again.
The part that is strongly liked is the notion of something constant and greater than day to day government, a sense of continuity of country.
Day to day meddling in details is strictly for the people we elect and hire to debate policy and pass that on to others that enact it.
The problems with that vote last time were that neither alternative was particularly palatable (each designed to help someone be the first president, long term be damned) and worse, that there were two republican choices at all, in order to split the republican vote.
So we still have a “constitution” that’s simply a law passed in Westminster.
I despair that the country will become a republic in my lifetime.
So we still have a “constitution” that’s simply a law passed in Westminster.
I despair that the country will become a republic in my lifetime.
I've no great love for the monarchy, I'll vote for a Republic if it comes up "clean" as a no strings attached kind of question, ..
but I don't "despair" .. the last time UK lackeys meddled in AU affairs ( The Dismissal : https://www.thedismissal.com/ ( bless the little bleeder ) ) goes back a ways and didn't go down well.
Should that kind of stunt get pulled again it'd likely trigger a Republic.
but I don't "despair" .. the last time UK lackeys meddled in AU affairs ( The Dismissal : https://www.thedismissal.com/ ( bless the little bleeder ) ) goes back a ways and didn't go down well.
Should that kind of stunt get pulled again it'd likely trigger a Republic.
That does not seem to be the case in the UK. Nor does it seem to be the case (yet) in Australia, which has rejected the move to become a Republic.
Everywhere else, I'm sure that may be the case. Except Norway. And Thailand. Maybe Bhutan. etc.
Everywhere else, I'm sure that may be the case. Except Norway. And Thailand. Maybe Bhutan. etc.
I did not know Bhutan, or Thailand had referenda on the composition of their government and decided to stay monarchic. Last time they asked in Norway it was roughly 120 years ago, around the time the Model T was all the rage. Things have change a tiny bit since then.
Most countries where a referendum has been held (particularly in the last 100 years) have decided to go with an elected head of stated, not a monarch. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchy_referendums)
Most countries where a referendum has been held (particularly in the last 100 years) have decided to go with an elected head of stated, not a monarch. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchy_referendums)
I never mentioned anything about referenda. Popular opinion in those countries is they are largely happy enough with their monarchy.
From what I can tell, in Norway it does seem that things have changed only a little bit.
Note I'm not a particular fan of any monarchy, but you did state that "I think the vast majority of people in any country would prefer a Head of State that is chosen by popular vote rather than by Royal Sperm." That's an easily falsifiable statement.
From what I can tell, in Norway it does seem that things have changed only a little bit.
Note I'm not a particular fan of any monarchy, but you did state that "I think the vast majority of people in any country would prefer a Head of State that is chosen by popular vote rather than by Royal Sperm." That's an easily falsifiable statement.
We're ambivalent on whether we want King Charles, but we're adamant in not wanting a President Sunak.
Don't vote for him then?
Nobody votes for the PM directly unless they're running in your local constituency. Beyond that though, we have gone through various PMs since our last election, so nobody did vote for him.
For those that will vote for him in the upcoming election (directly or indirectly), they still do not want him to be president either.
For those that will vote for him in the upcoming election (directly or indirectly), they still do not want him to be president either.
That won't actually make much of a difference in countries like the UK. The prime minister is not an elected role. In the UK there are so few parties that you'd have to either not vote or vote against your conviction to keep a party's prime minister candidate.
Technically you don't even need to be on the ballot in some countries to become the prime minister. Granted it would be weird, but ministers are appointed by the party or parties in power in parliament, so there's no rules that says that any minister needs to be elected or even on the ballots. It happens not to infrequently in parliamentary countries that ministers are pulled in from outside. Normally they'll the run in the next election, otherwise they'll have no voting power in the parliament.
I can see the argument that it's not democratic, but it avoids the issues of a presidential election as we seen in the US. In the end, the prime minister is "elected" by the candidates the people voted into the parliament, it works best if you have more than the four parties you seen in the UK.
Technically you don't even need to be on the ballot in some countries to become the prime minister. Granted it would be weird, but ministers are appointed by the party or parties in power in parliament, so there's no rules that says that any minister needs to be elected or even on the ballots. It happens not to infrequently in parliamentary countries that ministers are pulled in from outside. Normally they'll the run in the next election, otherwise they'll have no voting power in the parliament.
I can see the argument that it's not democratic, but it avoids the issues of a presidential election as we seen in the US. In the end, the prime minister is "elected" by the candidates the people voted into the parliament, it works best if you have more than the four parties you seen in the UK.
The monarchy still has a plurality of support in the UK, possibly because the only suggested alternative is an elected head of state.
The monarchy is an silly institution, but there’s something nice about having a (mostly) apolitical symbolic head of state. People look at it and think instead of Liz and Charles, we could have had someone like Trump, Macron, or President Boris, and that scares them off republicanism.
Germany is perhaps a bit better with their elected but mostly irrelevant president, but nobody even knows who they are, and in the end the prime minister acts like the head of state.
The most absurd thing about the monarchy is that it does its job quite well.
The monarchy is an silly institution, but there’s something nice about having a (mostly) apolitical symbolic head of state. People look at it and think instead of Liz and Charles, we could have had someone like Trump, Macron, or President Boris, and that scares them off republicanism.
Germany is perhaps a bit better with their elected but mostly irrelevant president, but nobody even knows who they are, and in the end the prime minister acts like the head of state.
The most absurd thing about the monarchy is that it does its job quite well.
I'm not a fan of monarchy system, but it's fair to say that Trump or equivalent as a "top" for both power and authority is nightmare.
All of this information and then they missed updating the favicon of the very page the article is published on :)
blog.gov.uk just said LMGTFY in a hyperlink that appears to be pointing at the Royal Cypher of King George VI.
> With huge thanks to teams across government
The power of just getting money from people. Why not involve teams across government in one of the most minor changes imaginable?
The power of just getting money from people. Why not involve teams across government in one of the most minor changes imaginable?
All those teams have applications that will need an update somehow.
Here is a list of organisations, each will have 1 or many websites - https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations
Here is a list of organisations, each will have 1 or many websites - https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations
There's an [incomplete] services list here along with the version of the Design System they're using. Those on 5.1, 4.8 or 3.15 are capable of showing the new crown.
https://github.com/x-govuk/govuk-services-frontend-stats
https://github.com/x-govuk/govuk-services-frontend-stats
Fun fact: the favicon of that particular website hasn't been updated with the new crown logo, which I find ironic.
looks like it was updated 2 days ago ...
< HTTP/2 200
< content-type: image/x-icon
< content-length: 4286
< server: nginx
< last-modified: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:37:12 GMT
< accept-ranges: bytes
< date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:42:04 GMT
< cache-control: public, max-age=86400
< etag: "65d375a8-10be"
< vary: Accept-Encoding
< x-cache: Hit from cloudfront
< via: 1.1 3e01624605be2cc1fb592922856a08c6.cloudfront.net (CloudFront)
< x-amz-cf-pop: LHR61-P1
< alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
< x-amz-cf-id: gsLjkVjEeAxylgygl4y67TgAfIf0bnZhlzTG5S-P0fXwhXh3LBl4Iw==
< age: 31562Ah, they are trying to hide the Kohinoor. Got you, buggers! ;-)
[stub for offtopicness]
I've never seen a [stub for offtopicness] - so I'm just here for the experience.
Whats interesting is that on algolia all of these stubs show up as 0 comments, probably because of the way dang moves them.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I miss gov.uk sites so much
[deleted]
lnxg33k1(3)
A ridiculous transaction cost by modern standards, especially when multiplied by all HM's various enterprises.
Except this kind of work spawned a nation of clerks and it has lasted a thousand years. Everybody has to think about the King's values, and implement them in their own little corner of the kingdom.
If Joe Biden changes his heraldry, it doesn't change my post office experience one whit.
Except this kind of work spawned a nation of clerks and it has lasted a thousand years. Everybody has to think about the King's values, and implement them in their own little corner of the kingdom.
If Joe Biden changes his heraldry, it doesn't change my post office experience one whit.
I'm not sure what the costs of this will be, but it'll be tiny on the scale of things. It's all done by GDS in-house, and the design is shared across every government site and app. Before GDS, there were constant rebranding projects across every corner of the government and civil service. Now this is done with one update to a shared design system.
Based on https://uspsblog.com/the-history-behind-the-usps-logo/ it seems the post office rebrands more often than GOV.UK did, at least up until now ;)
Not on the same magnitude of cost but each time there's a new president, portraits in military installations and government offices are updated. Many states have their governor on their welcome signs on roads and at airports. Some cities even do it for their mayor. At least with the Monarchy, it's not a routine expense like it is with frequent elections.
> Not on the same magnitude of cost but each time there's a new president, portraits in military installations and government offices are updated.
Chain-of-command portraits serve a practical, if minor, function; yes, more of them change when a chief executive changes than anyone else, but they also change when a batallion commander or civilian agency director changes, for the same reason as for a chief executive.
Heraldry of the monarch also serve a function, I suppose, but it is less like a chain of command photograph and more like the US national coat of arms (or the Great Seal, which has the former on the obverse); neither of which has changed substantially (there have been some rendering tweaks) since adopted by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation in 1782.
Chain-of-command portraits serve a practical, if minor, function; yes, more of them change when a chief executive changes than anyone else, but they also change when a batallion commander or civilian agency director changes, for the same reason as for a chief executive.
Heraldry of the monarch also serve a function, I suppose, but it is less like a chain of command photograph and more like the US national coat of arms (or the Great Seal, which has the former on the obverse); neither of which has changed substantially (there have been some rendering tweaks) since adopted by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation in 1782.
> Chain-of-command portraits serve a practical, if minor, function
And that function is that (for example) on a big Navy ship with thousands of sailors, the "lower ranks" might never have laid eyes on the commanding officer ("CO") or executive officer ("XO") but need to recognize him/her if s/he shows up unannounced and alone in a workspace — following the old nuclear-Navy rule that "you get what you INspect, not what you EXpect."
And that function is that (for example) on a big Navy ship with thousands of sailors, the "lower ranks" might never have laid eyes on the commanding officer ("CO") or executive officer ("XO") but need to recognize him/her if s/he shows up unannounced and alone in a workspace — following the old nuclear-Navy rule that "you get what you INspect, not what you EXpect."
My apartment has a sign by the trash chute that says "Mayor Giuliani"
As you say, most of those aren't a big deal, except in Chicago. The Daleys started putting their name on EVERYTHING; it's always strange to visit from out of town and see it so branded.
Well while we’re discussing needless costs associated with changes in leadership shall we talk about those hilariously over the top inaugurations you have every four years?
Those are less expensive and less dramatic than a typical NFL game. Rather understated, given our national culture.
The real issue is how much of the cost is unwritten by private entities and what they might expect in return.
That's really unconcerning compared to the bulk of political spending. Also, the money spent on inaugurations is easily trackable; it comes out of a general fund. Absolutely pales in comparison to Congressional insider trading and stuff like Hunter Biden and Eric Trump do: making money off of implied considerations.
Can you enumerate the costs of those inaugurations?
Well, Trump said there were a million people at his inauguration (I know, this was an absurd bald face lie). I don’t know how much it costs to rent, set up and take down that many chairs, but I’m going to guess it was more than three fifty.
At risk of picking nits: they don't put up a million chairs. I attended the 2012 inauguration and we all stood on the grass in the National Mall.
(I agree with your overall point though. There were speaker towers arranged at intervals down the mall and plenty of crowd control involved in getting people to and from the event in the first place, none of which had to have been cheap.)
(I agree with your overall point though. There were speaker towers arranged at intervals down the mall and plenty of crowd control involved in getting people to and from the event in the first place, none of which had to have been cheap.)
[deleted]
Everything whimsical must be destroyed to facilitate deterritorialisation!
> A ridiculous transaction cost by modern standards, especially when multiplied by all HM's various enterprises.
One corporate rebranding every quarter century is really cheap, by modern standards.
One corporate rebranding every quarter century is really cheap, by modern standards.
The average reign of a British monarch has been 25 years or so, since 1707, sure. But that’s skewed by two major outliers - Victoria (63 years) and Elizabeth II (70 years). Between the other 11 unitary monarchs the average is more like 17 years. Shorter turnovers are possible - four kings lasted 10 years or less. Not sure you’d get great odds on Charles beating that spread.
On the average, people in developed countries die ~30 years after their parents. I don't see why royal families should be an exception.
Among other factors, successor monarchs are disproportionately first children.
Especially now that he has cancer.
Yes, as I said, I think the Crown's rebranding might seem like a waste, but it's extremely useful for values/branding transmission.
When you see the branding story for, say, Google or Pepsi, that looks like money flushed straight down the toilet.
When you see the branding story for, say, Google or Pepsi, that looks like money flushed straight down the toilet.
You should read up on the mini-boom in the Japanese paper industry when Hirohito died.
Now let's just hope Australia follows suit...by eliminating the crown entirely from government.
Now let's just hope Australia follows suit...by eliminating the crown entirely from government.
Context: Japanese dates count years from the accession of the current emperor (Reiwa 1 = 2019, Reiwa 2 = 2020, etc), so when the emperor changes, you need to renumber basically everything.
Bonus: you also get confused foreigners who think "6/12/20" is 6 Dec 2020 or even 12 June 2020, instead of 20 Dec 2024 (Reiwa 6). Fortunately the Japanese themselves are ISO-compliant and always use YYMMDD.
Bonus: you also get confused foreigners who think "6/12/20" is 6 Dec 2020 or even 12 June 2020, instead of 20 Dec 2024 (Reiwa 6). Fortunately the Japanese themselves are ISO-compliant and always use YYMMDD.
When/if an emperor reigns for over 100 years, would they shorten the format as-per-iso shorthand rules? That is, would the year Reiwa 106 also be written as 6/12/20 ?
The specific problem here is that Charles has done less than zero to endear himself to the public. So far his most obvious interactions have all been "Look at me! I'm king now!"
For example - this silly little exercise. And his request that there should be portraits of him in school and public offices.
This will have been filtered through courtiers saying "I'm really not convinced that's a good idea, your majesty." So these public proofs of his kingness seems very important to him.
Meanwhile much of the country is starving or in debt, shops and businesses are closing, and infrastructure is crumbling.
It's not a good look.
For example - this silly little exercise. And his request that there should be portraits of him in school and public offices.
This will have been filtered through courtiers saying "I'm really not convinced that's a good idea, your majesty." So these public proofs of his kingness seems very important to him.
Meanwhile much of the country is starving or in debt, shops and businesses are closing, and infrastructure is crumbling.
It's not a good look.
You didn’t like his lukewarm delivery of the King’s Speech or his Greek tie?
Not entirely sure what he is meant to do.
I am a committed republican but as far as Kings in a constitutional monarchy can go he’s been pretty demonstrative against government policy.
Not entirely sure what he is meant to do.
I am a committed republican but as far as Kings in a constitutional monarchy can go he’s been pretty demonstrative against government policy.
I'm defending neither the institution of the monarchy nor Charles as a person, but this particular exercise is standard, not a whim of his. Each monarch has their own personal cypher, and has had for years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_ZL7H7WCzM
And reflecting that cypher in the gov.uk branding was not Charles's choice.
And reflecting that cypher in the gov.uk branding was not Charles's choice.
> If Joe Biden changes his heraldry, it doesn't change my post office experience one whit.
Tiny in comparison, but don't government offices feature a portrait of the president in the entryway?
Tiny in comparison, but don't government offices feature a portrait of the president in the entryway?
At least in the military, it's commonplace for the entranceway to the offices/working spaces of any unit to have a board with the official photos of the entire chop chain, from the President on down to the unit commanding officer.
And in basic training or the initial parts of officer training, one of the things people can be inspected on is having the names of everyone on that chain memorized. Not because that's something most military people routinely do, just to drive the point home of lawful orders and civilian control.
And in basic training or the initial parts of officer training, one of the things people can be inspected on is having the names of everyone on that chain memorized. Not because that's something most military people routinely do, just to drive the point home of lawful orders and civilian control.
Isn’t it time to abolish the monarchy?
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(p.s. before anyone bites my crownless head off: no the mod is not arguing for monarchy, and yes that would be just as much of a flamebait generic tangent.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(p.s. before anyone bites my crownless head off: no the mod is not arguing for monarchy, and yes that would be just as much of a flamebait generic tangent.)
Go vuk?
Even during said dictatorship, the absolute ruler avoided to tie anything to his personal identity, or even that of the ruling party; even though the lines between party and state were blurred elsewhere.
So to see that this is happening in one of the world oldest democracies never ceased to astonish me.