I am going to facefuck a hole right through that clay bust.

I can't say I plan that far ahead. The coronation cream cake at Lidl and Waitrose jam have all been just okay.

Are we going to have a cunt-off about abolishing the monarchy where one side says it will actually fix anything important and the other will be relatively ambivalent?

>>457658
It's chocolate. That's why the medals are mini Galaxy segments and Bountys.

It looks like that music video with Lionel Richie and the blind girl.

>>457662
>Are we going to have a cunt-off about abolishing the monarchy
It's the only thing saving us from the exploitation the American people are currently suffering.

>>457665
It does strike me as somewhat moronic that a lot of the people in favour of abolishing the monarchy are also in favour of electoral reform. Come on, you thickos. Are you in favour of the democratic process that would inevitably replace the monarchy, or aren't you?

>>457667
>Are you in favour of the democratic process that would inevitably replace the monarchy, or aren't you?
They're in favour of a better, more democratic process than the rather broken one we currently have.

>>457667

>Are you in favour of the democratic process that would inevitably replace the monarchy, or aren't you?

The monarch has a ceremonial function as head of state, but no political power. Maybe a Republican Britain would end up with an elected but apolitical head of state like they have in Ireland, but (given the broad direction of British politics over the last half-century) I think it's far more likely that we'd end up with the head of government also being the head of state.

The monarchy is a potent symbol of Britain's unequal and class-stratified society, which is precisely why we should keep it. Abolishing the monarchy gives the illusion of democracy, while likely concentrating even greater power in Downing Street and weakening the already weakened checks and balances in our unwritten constitution.

Monarchy feels desperately unfair to upper-middle-class liberals, but it's largely academic to people at the bottom. If you grew up on a council estate in Middlesborough, those Guardian readers who earn absurd salaries for talking shite in meetings are as remote from your lived experience as palaces and golden carriages; they're just a subtly different strata of "people with much nicer lives than you could ever hope to have, purely through accident of birth".

Abolishing the monarchy is a hollow gesture that only benefits the privileged; a genuinely fair society is built by the slow, patient work of rendering all forms of inherited privilege irrelevant. A truly egalitarian Britain would be one in which King George VII goes to work on a bicycle.

Also, on a purely empirical level: most of the worst places on earth are republics, while parliamentary monarchies are almost uniformly quite nice.

>>457670
I hate to be that person because I agree with your basic argument, but didn't it come out the queen was interfering in all kinds of legislation which would impact her personally? (Stuff like: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent where you've both got the boring constitutional part where, by vetting it at all she's got some power, and then the more overt "Oh, exempt my estates from road safety reform" bits.)

But that aside, I feel that on some level a monarch has to appreciate that they got where they are by sheer luck - "by the grace of god" - while the upper middle class (liberal or not) can always say they never got a hand-out. They studied hard at their nice middle class school, they got in to Oxford on the strengths of their academics and personality, they worked damn hard in the internship their friend recommended, and now they're in a comfortable job. Everything they've got they can feel they've earned fair and square, no luck and no god involved.

Nine posts before the Guardian reading middle classes are brought up, must be a record. A BROKEN RECORD!

>Royal superfans have already set up a coronation camp on the Mall - a full week before the King is due to be crowned.

>A huge blue tarpaulin has been attached to the railings to keep them dry, while a camp bed and several bags can be spotted underneath. The wacky contraption's inhabitants can be seen getting comfortable - with one wearing a fetching Union Jack hoodie and a flagged-up hat covered in patriotic badges.

>Believed to be royal devotee John Loughrey - he is no stranger to being at the front of crowds at major royal events. Mr Loughrey, who lives in south London, earned a reputation as Princess Diana's number one fan after quitting his job working in a kitchen so he could attend every court session of the inquest into her death in 2008.

https://archive.ph/fIUZ4

I've never heard of him before, but he's clearly got some form of mental deficiency going on.

>>457674

The guardian reading middle class, and their counterpart, the Mail/Times/Express/Whatever reading middle class, are genuinely everything wrong with this country though.

Mainly because we go about things assuming they ARE the country. Everything revolves around them. Anyone beneath gets trampled and forgotten. They actively throw good things under the bus to protect their status, all the fucking time. Look at all the inflation we're drowning under now- Because we had to spunk money everywhere to stop the middle class going bust. Working class people still had to go to work and are yet the ones bearing the cost.

Many such cases. You see what I am saying and so on and so on.

>>457687
>archive.ph
Do you suspect the article might go missing?

>>457691
The mods don't like direct DM links.

Why is it we always moan and talk about abolishing the monarchy but never bring up that you can get sent to prison for murder because of what some entirely unelected judge decided in the 1970s? Why is it that something that will never impact you in any direct way holds more of the national consciousness than the law of the land being largely invented in the courtroom over centuries by people in wigs who listen to arguments of competing barristers who can charge different fees?

I get the difference between common and civil law can be overstated but a civil code for Britain was literally drafted twice and the kinds of cases now going to the Supreme Court are highly politicised and heading in an American direction.

>>457694
Because it's one of those things you can pretend to care about whilst knowing it's never going to happen, like Boris Johnson during the Brexit campaign.

>>457692
Neither do the rest of us.

>>457694
>hat you can get sent to prison for murder because of what some entirely unelected judge decided in the 1970s
Maybe if you hadn't murdered someone in the 1970s the judge wouldn't have decided to send you to prison.

>>457672
>but didn't it come out the queen was interfering in all kinds of legislation which would impact her personally?
That would indeed be all that's left of any actual power the monarch has. If they try and interfere in things that don't directly affect them personally, Parliament will remind them what happened to the last person that tried that on. No monarch has refused assent on a bill that ministers didn't explicitly tell them to refuse since the Civil War. The example that's usually given is Queen Anne, but while that bill was waiting to be signed it got overtaken by events, and ministers advised her not to sign it. The same happened to a bill that got to Elizabeth II's desk, and it's almost certainly happened at other times in between.

>>457697
Nah, that's bollocks.

Go back 5+ years and some of the most popular threads on /b/ tended to be postings of Daily Mail articles. Picking apart the latest column from Liz Jones, aka Jizz Loans, was a regular occurrence and threads like the one about the 'Tiger Wives' article would set you all off like a bunch of gossiping fishwives.

There's no point in being revisionist about it.

>People watching the Coronation will be invited to join a "chorus of millions" to swear allegiance to the King and his heirs, organisers say. The public pledge is one of several striking changes to the ancient ceremony revealed on Saturday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65435426

Hmm.

>>457691

It's good form to archive links to news sites so you don't give them clicks.

>>457703
Some of these procedures are undeniably mental. I hope there are still a few that I don't have spoilt for me by reading about them in advance. I've already had my shock ruined about the weird naked oil bit behind the curtain, and the vow to defend the country from the degeneracy of Catholicism, so maybe I should just stop reading now.

If jug eared sausage fingers wants everyone to chant some mystic bollocks , I'm off to necromance Chris Hitchens.

>>457657
ordering myself a chinese and playing FIFA with the lads.
that is all.

I suppose the best thing I can do is not care. Which is caring in some way.

>>457711
>jug eared sausage fingers

Seeing these two makes me think maybe we're not just animals, after all.

>>457816
The lad is dressed like a Sith lord.

Playing Tears of the Kingdom and getting very unnerved by the underground bits. I have been ready to shit my kecks if I see a ReDead, but there have actually been worse beasties so far.

>>457816

Penny Mourdaunt carrying that Rapier made my Gentleman do a salute.

>>457829

>>457839
I'm not even in Penny Club, but I've been so horny lately that this image is going to kill me.

>>457839 >>457842
Since when has involuntary pornography been acceptable around here?

Is this the type of thing they want to ban undet deepfake laws?

>>457843

Particularly in /sfw/. Fucksake, lads.

You freaks left up the antisemitism website link, but you're Johnny on the spot when it comes to Penny Mordaunt with G cups. What in the name of Christ is going on?

>>457848
No scantily clad women unless they're Carol Vorderman. I don't make the rules.

>>457843
What's the moderation position on AI generated imagery anyway. Celebrity fakes have been an industry for a long time and parody has been broadly interpreted as part of that.

I was going to post the 'Oops I farted again' Britney video as an example but despite it being the very height of early 00s internet comedy I feel that I'd have to unplug my router for a week to think about what I did.

>>457851
I assume fully AI images are fine but anything intended to look like a real person is a potential hassle.

>>457849
Not really what I had taken issue with.

>>457848
>You freaks left up the antisemitism website link
Mate I made a mistake of judgement with that link while under the influence of fatigue and boredom. It was probably left up to signal a raised eyebrow or possibly due to the neutral comment.

There's also the arguement that talking about Jews Jewish people Israel uh .. interest groups that happen to include a measure of extremism regardless of racial, political or religious inferences doesn't necessitate antisemitism any more than talking about Are England necessitates bald headed racist thugs - but we'll leave that discussion to the secret courts, sharn't we (or a different thread at the very least)?

>>457842
It was pretty special, huh? Like a haute cuisine Quality Street. I felt bad about my attraction considering the context. Now that it's gone I'd have liked to have saved it but .. well, we've got to allow ourselves modesty.