#AbolishtheMonarchy trends on Twitter following the Queen’s parliamentary mess

Boris Johnson meets JD Wetherspoon chairman Tim Martin at Wetherspoons Metropolitan Bar in London

I honestly thought it was a helpful explanation when someone compared the current British political mess to “imagine Donald Trump decides he can shut down Congress for a month and push through important legislation without debate” (I’m paraphrasing). Except that’s sort of halfway happened in America – while Trump hasn’t shut down Congress, he absolutely would if he could and he’s already largely neutered the Republican Congressional caucus into a rubber-stamp for all of his words, actions and agendas. Is that what it’s like with Boris Johnson? Are the Tories in Parliament just in lockstep with him politically? Sure, they’ll say some words about how terrible all of this is but at the end of the day, they’re still going to push through a no-deal Brexit, right?

One Conservative has resigned over the whole “Parliament suspension” mess – Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has announced her retirement, partly for personal reasons and partly because of Brexit and Boris Johnson.

You know what surprises me a little bit? Donald Trump really hasn’t inserted himself into the parliamentary shenanigans. He did tweet this yesterday:

Which is a threat. And a reminder that in the US and UK, we’re literally stuck with the WORST people in power. But that’s the only tweet thus far, which is… suspicious. Anyway… are the UK Celebitches still upset about the Queen doing the proroguing thing or whatever? I would still be mad. People were so upset with the Queen’s rubber-stamp for Boris, #AbolishtheMonarchy was trending for hours in the UK and beyond. Well, at least people aren’t talking about the Duke of York right now huh.

Royal Garden Party

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red and Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

221 Responses to “#AbolishtheMonarchy trends on Twitter following the Queen’s parliamentary mess”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Elisabeth says:

    The tweet that’s imbedded whose handle is a name and then a string of random numbers is most likely a Russian fake. That’s their tell. That and the fact that of course the Russians are stirring the pot on Twitter. Not saying they’re all fake, but that one definitely is.

    • Pixie says:

      You’re almost certainly right about them being a fake, but I wouldn’t assume Russian. There are so many illicit people/companies invested in that kind of stuff, anyone could be behind it.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Not many followers and followed, so it’s quite possible, but “his” Tweets are pretty cogent and the grasp of the English language is quite good.

      Could be a pot-stirrer. At the same time, actual Brits are making the same exact points.

      If the British monarch has devolved into a purely ceremonial creature with ZERO discretion, then what exactly is the point and why is she the Head of State? What is she doing getting her red box every day and doing her hours of “work” ?

      I’m Canadian. She’s my Head of State too. Our former Conservative PM, Harper, used the power of prorogation to shut down the government to avoid a no-confidence vote, too, and he “consulted the Queen” through the Governor General. At least they made a pretense of allowing it a few days of seeming deliberation. In the current Brexit situation, it feels as if the Queen nodded briskly so she could get back to tea and jam in the Scottish outback.

      • Tegteg says:

        ITA with everything you said.

      • hoopjumper says:

        I honestly thought it was well understood that the point of the monarchy was to drive tourism to the UK, to shine lights on charitable causes in aristo circles (billionaires encouraging millionaires to donate I guess), and to have a living embodiment of the state for ceremonial purposes. I am genuinely surprised at the number of people who are mad at the Queen for staying out of the democratic process. Don’t get me wrong, you should abolish the monarchy if you feel like it. Or keep them but somehow stop them being Head of State. But do people really want the UK to have a political leader chosen by birth? Because that’s more or less what people are asking her to be here.

      • StarGreek says:

        @who are these people

        ITAWY. 👏👏👏👏

      • Arpeggi says:

        Actually, when Harper prorogued parliament, GG only waited a few hours, not days (although, yeah, it felt much longer). And one of the conditions to approve it was that there would be a budget vote coming back which would effectively be a confidence vote. Also, there were active talks of a coalition of the opposition with enough seats to form a government whereas Corbyn doesn’t have that right now so there’s no other option (and Michaëlle Jean was quite pleased with herself/her GG position so of course she’d try to do something unprecedented and a power mo e; QEII was born in it). I’m sure QEII has had discussion with counsellors about what could be done in such a situation, it’s not like it was a surprise move by BoJo. The truth is, she had no choice but to approve it (which is what the GG in Canada did too ultimately). If the prorogation has to be contested, it has to come from the people, through the justice system, which is what is happening. It would be a terrible precedent for the Queen to call the shot

      • Gretchen says:

        Yes. Thank you. So many of the comments here yesterday and elsewhere seemed to really miss that point and the nature of the Queen’s role. I am anti-monarchy, and there are plenty of reasons to be so, but this ‘controversy’ is stupid and a distraction from the real problems surrounding Brexit.

        I can’t help wonder if this is being inflated, with people’s anger being diverted so we don’t all lose the plot with the very real possibility of a no-deal Brexit looming just around the corner.

      • StarGreek says:


        And many simply wanted to stay misinformed as they see the BRF under a romantic light.

        Us in UK are fed with the useless overexpensive institution, it is time they go. Period.

      • Selena says:

        And in Australia in 1975 she approved for the Governor General to actually sack the government! Mind you it was all they could do at the time, Whitlam wouldn’t resign, Fraser wouldn’t release funding, so the Queen and GG dissolved parliament. I just think when people say to vote for a republic, what do we replace our system of governement with? The American system? Doesn’t work too well really. I also worry about the expense of getting rid of the monarchy. I would prefer my tax dollars go to something else.

      • Gretchen says:

        I’m from the UK and agree with you, however it’s hardly a universal sentiment across the country. I would love to have seen them out a long time ago and hope the monarchy is abolished in my lifetime, right now though, the ire belongs square on the shoulders of Johnson and the catastrophe that is the Conservative government, not to mention the general ineptitude of Labour and Corbyn forming such weak opposition.

        All I’m saying is, right now, we have bigger fish to fry, fish with much more influence over the daily lives of people in UK and the disaster that is Brexit. There was never even the possibility of the Queen acting differently from how she did, the shock of her signing off seems misplaced, I am far more worried about an egotistical PM who thinks he can bypass parliament and put everyone on time out so he can go about his merry way crashing our country into a massive pile of sh*t than a Queen with no political role doing what she has always done.

    • Tegteg says:

      I don’t think it’s fake. We’re talking about the Victor Brown tweet, right? I clicked and looked at his account and it looks like a legitimate account. Most of his past tweets are about stopping brexit, which would not be what Russia wants. He also tweets about football (soccer), the beatles, the monkees, a missing child, etc. The only red flag for me is that his account was created in March of this year, but still it looks like it could be a legitimate account to me.

      • annakarenina says:

        Yeah, the letters then numbers thing just means someone signed up quickly and didn’t care what their screenname was.

  2. M. says:

    I had a big smile on my face last night. The royal reporters and British press wanted this to happen in response to Harry and Meghan, not the Queen. 99% of the #AbolishtheMonarchy tweets I read yesterday were about Prince Andrew and the Queen.

    I said a while ago that the hate campaign against H and M would eventually blow back onto the entire royal family. Reporters and trolls opened up the floodgates, now their precious Queen is getting ripped to shreds.

    • Britt says:

      Isn’t it hysterical? All that hoopla over fake protocols, the horrid Markle family and the media led hysteria over everything they do backfired. The media wants access so badly and wants to disparage them so badly that they would try to attach the Sussexes name to the mess the Andrew and the Queen just made. Duncan Larcombe tried that on Good Morning Britain a few days ago and he was shut down, LOL. They are still obsessed with the Sussexes, even though the UK is a mess and the mom-son duo is putting the monarchy in more trouble than ever before.

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      Murdoch hates the monarchy and so headlines this has been his low key (!) aim forever.
      Stupid people, trolls and those with zero idea of the Queen’s real powers, not those conferred upon her as a constitutional hangover, help him with this.

      She is there as the icing on a cake. She is nice for some but without her there is still cake. Others dislike her but there is still cake.
      She remains purely as it is the will of the people to accept the continuance of a monarchy in this form

      She no longer holds any power. Her opening Parliament is pomp. Her accepting Prime Ministers or not is beside the point.
      She is not elected and does not speak with or for the people.
      It is idiotic in the extreme for anyone to believe that she is a check or balance to government.
      She is the opposite of that. She is a head for a stamp and someone with a great array of carriages.

      • Maria says:

        I would argue it’s not the true will of the people if the people are kept in the dark about how much money the Royal Family appropriates from the British public since they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and God knows what else they do behind the scenes.

      • ByTheSea says:

        Which is exactly why the monarchy should be abolished. That tweet was exactly right: to have this bottomless wealth, at the cost of real social change and to be “decorative” is mindboggling. #abolishthemonarchy

      • StarGreek says:


        Yep, agree with everything you said!

      • Megan says:

        The irony of Brexit is that it is exposing the UK’s oldest institution as a farce.

        My hear goes out to all of the UK Celebitchies. Johnson is truly terrifying.

      • grumpy says:

        Boris is great!! My heart goes out to you if you believe the stuff you read on the internet. It is a shame to be so gullible. BoJo is no Trump. We have a Prime Minister who is actually fulfilling the results of a democratic referendum. Parliament is regularly prorogued but people pay so little attention to government that they have never noticed before now. The BRF is also not our oldest institution, they were shipped in from Hannover 300 years ago, they have nothing to do with us and these fair weather republican remainers are a bit thick if they hadn’t noticed what a joke the royals were before now.

      • StarGreek says:


        I cannot believe some of you deluded Brexiteers have even found a way to pester us on an American site.

        Be gone! Boris Johnson is a charlatan. There is nothing great in having an authoritarian demagogue leading a country. The referendum was a fraud and I struggle to see how a fraud is democratic.

      • Anna says:

        The Queen does have some powers. She can appoint and dismiss ministers, for example.
        But I definitely agree that the monarchy should be abolished. Because basically the Queen demonstrated the willingness to neuter democracy for ideological reasons.

    • Louise says:

      Yes, I still can’t believe Harry and Meghan are being attacked for being good parents, not bad ie for protecting their son from the spotlight. That’s good parenting ffs.

  3. .chunkyLa says:

    She received A LOT of good will once she reached her Dimond Jubilee and a lot of time and effort was spent rehabilitating her image after Diana’s death but all of that seems to have gone down the toilet in the last few weeks!.

    • Seraphina says:

      I agree, her image was really turned around after that celebration. And it looked like she accepted Meghan, which helped people think TQ was progressive and modernizing the archaic institution BUT, I am back to my old thinking that these individuals only care about thing: THEMSELVES and preserving their privileged lifestyle while providing very little back to the people when we see how much they take advantage and how they live and how above the law they think they are (I’m looking at you Andrew).

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      Not just then, but again, when she gave Pedo all those fake medals and the ambassadorship, after his first run in with Epstein. Perhaps TQ *wasn’t* as upset with hosting the Orange Sh!t Stain as we thought?

      In all seriousness, if all she is there to do is rubber stamp, why bother with the pretense of her reading the “red boxes” EVER day (as they say, except Xmas day). If she’s only an ornamental figure head to be trotted out on State occasions, what’s the point of having a RF? To see the jewels? Put them ALL in The Tower or in the Palaces, and charge admission. Open the palaces/make them museums.

      All respect for TQ, for me, has headed south in the last month in particular.

      I’m sorry for my UK sister (and brother)-Celebitches.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        What’s the point, indeed?

        Perhaps it’s because I was raised in a different system, but between the Canadian and the British parliaments being prorogued simply to allow Prime Ministers to avoid being tossed by the will of the people, it feels as if monarchists still hold out some kind of vague threat that the royals will be there one day in an extreme situation to check some kind of Parliamentary abuse or Constitutional crisis. We never actually get told what that might be. It never actually seems to materialize. Maybe because it does not exist and it’s only a justification to keep that un-elected hereditary dynasty in place. Because if this situation with Boris Johnson, a barely elected anti-democratic conspirator, can seize power and shut down Parliament as such a momentous time for Great Britain and Europe, thus the world, what is the monarchy there for? What is the greater crisis?

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:


        Same going on here. Founding Fathers thought they were safeguarding our future by making three separate branches of government so there’d be oversight. They never oversaw the corruption/greed/abdication of duty for personal gain… the absolute dismissal of rules of law…. Scary times, indeed!

      • Nic919 says:

        The Queen basically blew apart the hope that a royal head of state adds any value to the political shenanigans by rubber stamping the request , which contravenes normal political conventions, so quickly. Why not go for a republic then. People threaten then you end up with dump, but there is the Irish option as well.

        Michaelle Jean did a better job as GG by at least consulting others when the request was made in Canada.

      • annakarenina says:

        It was always a Boomer Fantasy that the Queen was somehow unhappy that Trump was there. They’re birds of a feather.

      • noway says:

        Now believing your son is different than believing in Trump. I don’t like her position either, but I can understand it, he’s her son. To imply the Queen is pro-Trump cause she believes in her son is a fallacy of thought plus kind of nuts!!!!

        Another issue with the monarchy aside from the money issue is either you’re ceremonial or you’re not. Why ask the Queen for this if she really doesn’t have the power to say no with any authority. I think in today’s day and age they should just be ceremonial and never asked for anything like this even if it is just a formality. I do think having a living monarchy in the UK has helped with tourism dollars for the UK, but the problem is they are too damn expensive and they have too many of them on the taxpayer rolls. Seems like there could be a way to make it the right size to increase tourism dollars and not take a toll. Also, it’s not like even if they get rid of the monarchy these people aren’t going to be white privileged people still.

  4. Cidy says:

    I mean it was just the worst move. Like the royal family already has bad optics and have had for awhile and bow this horrible move. I can completely understand people wanting to get rid of this family and not pay for their lifestyles anymore.

  5. Chica71 says:

    Hugh Grant’s tweet was absolute 🔥 yesterday.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Chica71, Can you post the Hugh Grant tweet?

    • Lindy79 says:

      Not gonna lie, it was a bright spark in a day of shit.

      • antipodean says:

        @BayTampaBay, I believe Toi Filles is referencing the hilarious Monty Python sketch, wherein four typical Yorkshiremen are trying to outdo each other using outrageous hyperbolic oneupmanship as to how dysfunctional each of their childhood situations were. Towit;”we used to live in a paper bag in’t septic tank”, “we used t’lick road clean w’it tongue”…… you get the idea. It is always hilarious especially when it escalates on Twitter it seems.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @antipodean, Thanks! Have not seen all the classic Monty Python Episodes.

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      GOTTA love when a British man gives a proper “swear” 😊 That was BRILLIANT! And TOTALLY on point! Bravo, Hugh, well-said!

    • Jerusha says:

      For the past week I’ve been having my own little Hugh Grant film festival-watched or rewatched about ten of his films. Love Hugh and love that tweet!

    • StarGreek says:

      Yep!! Hugh’s tweet was amazing.

      I also liked several comments on the Guardian!
      “I still remember when BJ meant something positive” lmao

  6. Alexandria says:

    Sure, you can say she couldn’t say no or she is merely a rubber-stamp. So the question now is why keep the BRF then? Sorry not sorry that her legacy will go down the drain.

    I have the same issue with my country’s President. Waste of tax money.

    • Eliza says:

      Correct. She gave up all the power for more money and getting the anti-royalists off her back decades ago.

      Now she’s just a powerless figurehead the taxpayers pay hundreds of millions to annually for … tourism? tradition? honestly, the lack of a political structure to enable change – the current politicians can’t negotiate new EU trade deals in 2 years. Can you imagine restructuring an entire government??

    • STRIPE says:

      This is my question. Perhaps being Americans we just don’t get it. But I really REALLY don’t get it.

      • Anna says:

        Little summary:
        The British Prime Minister before Johnson was Theresa May. She tried to negotiate a Brexit deal wit the EU but British Parliament always refused May’s achieved Brexit deals. British Parliament simply refused to sign the Brexit deals which May had negotiated with the EU.
        Then May left.
        Now Johnson is Prime Minister.
        As Johnson remembers May’s difficulties he simply doesn’t intend to ask British Parliament for their approval of the Brexit deal by sending them home for an extended break. The Queen was complicit in this. The Queen neutered british democracy and that is revolting.

    • Angela says:

      EXACTLY! What is the point of the RF?! Get rid of them. I’d love for everyone (Queen, Charles, William, Kate, Harry, Meghan, etc) to have to attempt to live in the real world. The UK Is in some serious freaking trouble and at this point I see NO POINT in this ridiculous family. Get rid of them. Tourists will still flock to see everything.

      • Mtec says:

        Well, out of all of those Meghan does know how to live in the real world. The ironic thing is, that family has done so much to try and damage the Sussexes image in order to deflect from their actual problems, but in the end the only ones I can see making something out of themselves if the monarchy were to be abolished is Harry and Meghan.

      • Angela says:

        Meghan will be fine, especially because she is even more well-known now. Before she married Harry, she wasn’t hanging out with George Clooney and Elton John either though. Harry won’t be. I get that everyone seems to worship him but he is just as bad as everyone else in his family. He could have left YEARS ago. He’s as vapid and privileged as the rest of them. I’m not sure why everyone seems to put him on a pedestal.

      • Bookworm says:

        I never understood the tourist justification. Tourists don’t see them. They don’t have tourism Meet and Greets for the royals. You don’t buy tickets to have dinner with them or watch them perform a comedy routine.

        If you even catch a glimpse of one, they’d be horrified.

      • annakarenina says:

        The tourist justification has always been a BRF self-justification point, and utter rubbish.

        Versailles has no issue getting visitors, and monarchs haven’t lived there for centuries. If the Queen and her soppy children were turfed from their free housing, people would still visit historical sites.

      • Bookworm says:

        Kate was raised non-royal, so I think she’d be fine, as well as Meghan. The children are young enough to adapt.

        Their husbands will be another story but boo-hoo.

      • annakarenina says:

        They’re all famous enough, PLUS the scandal of the whole monarchy disappearing, would mean they all end up with high-paying gigs somewhere.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Angela, if Harry had left “years ago”, he would have left his brother’s children at the mercy of Andrew as possible guardian and Regent. Mull on that one for awhile.

      • Angela says:


        I get that Harry is the most magical unicorn in the world but can we please NOT act like he only stuck around because of William and Kate’s children? Did you hurt yourself with that reach?

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      IF they ever got rid of the royal family (and I highly doubt the Brits ever will), my guess is the RF won’t go quietly and will fight to keep most of the billions of dollars of wealth as their own “personal” property. Because the King and the State used to be the same entity, and anything acquired by the State belonged to the King. Now that they are not the same entity, I believe it should all go to the State — but I suspect the RF will argue it should go to *them.* Just my hunch. Also, they will continue to call themselves by royal titles even long after the positions cease to exist — like the way the non-royals of Greece continue to call themselves royals.

  7. Erinn says:

    I found yesterdays thread about this kind of amusing, but probably for all the wrong reasons. I was taught that the monarchy are a figurehead – their powers were very limited and mainly a formality and that the will of the people is supposed to be followed. There seemed to be SO many American’s outraged over this trying to tell the Brits/other common wealth citizens how the monarchy should/does work.

    But seeing so many “But this is a different circumstance! She should have done something!” was frustrating when so many have been saying that exact same thing about the US for the last year and a half – more times than I can count. Yes, things are different. But it’s just not that simple. It truly is never that simple, and I think we can ALL look at things that have happened in our home governments over the years and know that even when things ARE incredibly different it’s pretty near impossible for someone to truly pull rank and make a swift change in the trajectory of issues like this. If it were simple Hillary would be president and the electoral college wouldn’t exist. If it were that simple you’d have Trump out of power by now. There’s been so many dire circumstances that you could say were a completely different situation than ‘normal’ politics where someone should have intervened, but it wasn’t wholly possible.

    Her Maj was taught her duties – which she seems to take very seriously – and perhaps they’re outdated in this world, but it is what it is. She’s a 93 year old woman who’s always put duty first in her life – I don’t believe for a second that she didn’t think her hands were tied. Maybe things WOULD have been a bit different if Charles was in charge – but that doesn’t mean the outcome would completely change either – more than likely it might have delayed things a bit, but I doubt it’d have made much impact overall.

    Ultimately though – thoughts are with you all in the UK. I can’t imagine how uncertain things must feel right now, and I truly hope it all goes as well as possible. I’m rooting for you guys – you’re a tough bunch.

    • helonearth says:

      You are correct that she is a figurehead, brought out for state occasions to impress foreigners. She didn’t have a choice and that’s that.

      The blame should rest firmly with Boris Johnson.

      • Erinn says:

        And that’s where I’m happy to put it! He’s such a freaking skeezy guy. I know looks aren’t everything, but man. You just look at that guy and you can’t get past how much of a creepy moron he is.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        How in the world did BloJo take control of the Tory party?

      • annakarenina says:

        Why wouldn’t he take control of it? He’s got the “right” schooling, he’s been preparing for this his whole life.

      • Anna says:

        The Queen does have some powers, for example: dismissing and appointing ministers. That is the power she used to send parliament into a pause. Respectively she neutered democracy by sending home parliament.

    • Seraphina says:

      @Erinn, I am beginning to believe her sense of “duty” is really the duty to protect their very cushy lifestyle.

      I say cut the apron strings and make them sustain themselves. They have enough money and if they really feel like they are God’s chosen ones, their sense of gratefulness should push them into their rightful place of doing charity work and helping those who are less fortunate.

      And for all those who say they bring in money, everyone I know comes to visit England for its history not to see QE. Make them part of history as well.

      • A says:

        Agree. Their only “duty” is making sure that they’re covering their own arses.

      • Erinn says:

        I can see both sides of that. I mean – just imagine growing up in that kind of lifestyle – especially in the era that she did. She’s still probably got that mindset, and when you’re so insulated in that lifestyle, I’m sure it’s hard for her to see beyond that. But at the same time, do we really think her lifestyle would be DRASTICALLY different if the monarchy went away? I really don’t think so. But at the same time – this is a woman who got involved in WW2. And it wasn’t just some formality office job or something like that – she got her hands dirty. I don’t think her biggest concern is about a comfortable lifestyle – I think she truly does think she’s doing what’s best. Now, her idea of what’s best may be dated and that’s an issue – but I really don’t think she’s sitting there trying to calculate how many piles of gold she should be putting aside in case things truly go tits up.

      • duchesschicana says:

        Honestly, I visited London for royal inluence and history, but that was a few years ago, now hmmmm.

    • Sue Denim says:

      @Erinn, I’m no expert on this, and your comment is thoughtful and deep and I appreciate it, but this reminds me of when the Queen hewed to tradition by not flying the flag at half mast during the sad Diana week, because she wasn’t at Buckingham Palace, and eventually relented, providing symbolic but still meaningful comfort to her people. This feels like another time when she could have provided more comfort than she has, to use more skill in balancing the obvious power grab Boris and his ilk are engaged in, even if only symbolically. By just going along w it, she makes her role irrelevant, calling in to question much more beyond this one decision about her privileges. Esp in context of Epstein and Brexit. Sad day tho for Britain, and scary for the world as a hard exit will likely be v bad for the global economy and for all of us still clinging to the ideals of democracy…

      • Erinn says:

        I’m happy to agree with that, Sue Denim. Honestly, comfort WOULD be helpful, and I think she could be doing more to provide that. But I also think that in a lot of ways that family is so emotionally screwed up and repressed, that they just don’t fully understand how emotionally closed off they come across. Which – isn’t so much an excuse as it is why I think they do what they do. I think they’re much more “this is how it works, this is what I’m going to do” than “this is going against the way things work but this is important to comfort people”.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Sue, you’re exactly right here. Even a symbolic “gesture” whether or not it would’ve perhaps provided a catalyst to “her” people that she claims to love… it would’ve meant a LOT. But it seems she just basically threw up her hands and said, “Eh…whaddevah! I’m outta here!” I’m *still* shaking my head over it! Perhaps, under it all, she IS a Brexiter, not caring about EU, but only about her Commonwealth countries and only wishing to expend energies to hold onto those? I see it all falling apart once she goes.

      • Lolo says:

        You’re forgetting that in the Diana situation, it was her then prime minister (Tony Blair) who convinced her to break with tradition. She didn’t want to and indeed didn’t see any need to but he convinced her in part by helping her see that her reign was being threatened. Obviously in this case, her PM isn’t going to step in and help her see sense, so she naturally reverts back to the status quo, which is her default. I honestly think part of the problem is she’s not capable of any sort of critical thinking on her own. In the end, this is a reminder that after years of inbreeding, these people are, for the most part, fantastically stupid.

    • Josephine says:

      93 is no excuse; can’t do the job, step aside. Her “decision” had meaning. The “it’s complicated” excuse almost always means “it’s hard,” and often that just means “it’s hard because it will cost me, personally.” Well, time to do what’s hard. Been hearing that excuse way too many times, mostly in the US but in other countries as well. Not sure what she thinks she’s protecting because she’s just giving people more reason to get rid of her family’s outrageous title and privileges.

      • Erinn says:

        The thing is – she’s IS doing the job. She’s not going beyond that, and that’s the problem people are having with it. But I don’t think it’s 100% fair to expect her to suddenly go against the grain and single-handedly force the change when there have been SO many instances across the world where someone should have done that and haven’t. Why are we putting a higher expectation on her than we put on the US? She’s part of an incredibly out of date system. Of course she benefits greatly from this, but at the end of the day there’s very little that’s modern about the monarchy, and that’s just how it is. But somehow we expect her to jump and make an unprecedented change when there are so many people in power working in a more modern system who are unable to do the same.

      • Josephine says:

        @ Erinn – I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect more of people in positions of incredible privilege. But honestly, I think it’s not too much to ask everyone these days to step up, to take a stand, to put yourself out there, to do what is right. These morons are winning because they have terrified people. So who better to take action (even if it’s symbolic) than someone who can afford to make that stand? No one is willing to put country about themselves, so yeah, I expect more of a monarchy that it is actually supposed to put country first. I expect much, much, much more of the senators in the US who only think of themselves, and that’s true of almost every single one of them.

        But if not a queen, than who? Someone has to start, someone has to be brave, someone has to care enough to take a risk, and in my opinion, her risk is extremely small compared to the risk others would take.

    • Wadsworth the Butler says:

      Her powers are not limited to being a rubber stamp in this situation. Her interpretation of her powers is that she is a rubber stamp. She is also someone who is widely known to be politically conservative and who obsessively avoids confrontation. And she has spent her entire reign surrounding herself with advisers who hold similar beliefs. She was thus a sitting duck for posh charlatans like JRM and Boris. Charles would have dodged this trap like Andrew dodges the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

      • Nic919 says:

        The Canadian GG faced the same situation and did more than just rubber stamp Harper’s request. She consulted with others. The Queen could have taken more time to do that. She instead made it look like she wanted to get back to her tea at Balmoral. Also there is an argument about what would be considered the will of Parliament and that is not necessarily what the government wants. Parliament is all MPs. Constitutional scholars aren’t all in agreement with what she could do, so her speedy acquiescence is why many are angry at her.

      • annakarenina says:

        Yes, Wadsworth! People seem to forget that the role is as she wants it.

    • pollyv says:

      Thank you for this. As a Canadian who lived through 4 proroguings by the Conservative government from 2008 to 2013, I know how frustrating it can be when your Head of State is unable to do anything about useless, crooked politicians using this parliamentary tool to their advantage. People living in the USA don’t understand this and are outraged at the Queen but those of us in Commonwealth countries are just as baffled by some US laws and customs.

  8. OriginalLala says:

    I’m 100% team abolish the monarchy! The Queen was never going to step in and protect anything, but herself, her precious son, and her totally unjustified and unimaginable wealth and power.

    • Seraphina says:

      @originallala, preach!

    • Brunswickstoval says:

      with you all the way. A no deal Brexit is a disaster and not what anyone wth any sense can possibly hope for. I honestly don’t know what I’d do if I lived in England. Or worse Northern Ireland. What a complete f***ing mess. And if she and the rest of the BRF goes at least the Uk can spend the money on supplies for its residents after brexit.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Have friends (big time pastoral & arable farmers) in Northern Ireland who feel that if reunification with Republic of Ireland is what it will take to stay in the UK then so be it. Bring on a referendum as there has been limited trouble since the Good Friday Accord.

      • annakarenina says:

        There’s been limited trouble BECAUSE of the Good Friday Accord, along with Ireland’s economic success in the EU.

        Ireland/Northern Ireland is a powder keg waiting for spark. The hard border has to go SOMEWHERE when the UK leaves the EU.

        It will either divide Great Britain from Northern Ireland (a mess), divide Northern Ireland from Ireland (impractical and dangerous), or divide the UK and Ireland from Europe (a f*cking disaster for Ireland who have nothing to do with this ).

    • duchess of hazard says:

      @OriginalLala – same. I know people are, “But precedent“. Everything in this shit show is unprecedented, she’s watched for over 50 odd years and has been through 14 prime ministers. The threat of a prologued Parliament was in the wind for months when Dominic Raab brought it up, and yet… she couldn’t seek legal advice before? But listen to Mogg and Johnson whose actions will definitely break up the UK?

      At least people aren’t talking about her son shagging underaged teenage girls anymore, eh, ma’am.

      • OriginalLala says:

        yeah, I was wondering if there was another reason for her to accept Johnson’s request. If people are losing their mind over this, no one is paying attention to Andrew.

      • Nic919 says:

        I completely agree that Andrew is a factor in this mess because the headlines are about him and having the govt in crisis pushes him off the front page.

    • Gil says:

      She is trolling us. So we can forget about her pedophile son a focus in this hot mess. Good move from her part. Her people is smart I have to give them that

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        She would assented to the prorogation if Andrew never even existed, or led a blameless life. I think, at this stage in her life, she’s been detached from the realities of “her” people and shielded from the consequences of various bad governments, that she feels she can and must sail through more. The monarchy is revealed to be what it is: A relic of the past, but clearly not a thoughtful Constitutional counter-balance to problematic governments.

        I enjoy her frocks and the pomp as much as anyone, but think of her now as depicted in The Crown: a remote, spottily educated country girl who sat around watching TV with mummy and occasionally rose to the international occasion by dint of good manners and a more forward-looking husband.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The whole point of a monarch is protection of the people from the abuse of power by politicians and feudal hereditary aristocratic power of the peerage. The crown should be a check and balance on power of the elected politicians & the peerage.

      • Arpeggi says:

        @BAYTAMPABAY, no, the whole point of a monarch isn’t to protect the people from the bad decisions of elected officials. If anything, that would sort of be the House of Lords’ job. The whole point of a monarch is to be god’s gift to Earth and benefit from having been born in the right family and that only work until people decide it makes no sense. The BRF gave up control centuries ago to ensure they wouldn’t end up like the French royals, it worked out great for them. Now all they do is cut ribbons, meet veterans and throw state dinners to impress the visit. They are useless, it’s about time people realize it.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Arpeggi, I was not referring to the BRF or The UK . I was referring to to the concept of Monarchy in general as a form of government.

  9. Antipodeangirl says:


  10. Nivedita says:

    Are all of the people here @celebitchy stupid? Queen is a Figurehead, she can’t do anything without people’s will and for time being people’s will is vested into Prime Minister. If people are so upset over this, they should have voted for Remain.

    • Brunswickstoval says:

      It’s not that simple. They voted for Leave but not a hard leave. The referendum was a set up.

      • Nivedita says:

        Was there a choice called leave and hard leave? If no, how could you assume that vote was for one not another. Again not Queen’s fault that she respects democracy(Elected Prime Minister and Referendum). You can abolish the monarchy for many reasons like it’s a feudal system which propagates class discrimination but this argument is stupid.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Honestly, it’s far too late to say that this isn’t the type of Brexit the people who voted “Leave” wanted. If they weren’t prepared to go for a hard Brexit, they should have voted “Remain”. And QEII is the last person who should decide, she wasn’t even allowed to vote in the 1st place! They should have asked about all this during the campaign and read about it a bit more than they did. Now, if they want a do-over, if they feel that the current PM is acting against the constitution and abusing his power, they can turn to the tribunals and their MPs to try to force a new referendum, it’s what some are doing at the moment. But the Queen can’t do it, she doesn’t have that power and never had it. She’s just a figurehead. People need to demonstrate, walk out of work, strike, go to the tribunals, not hope that a 93yo will come and save their a**.

    • Taryn says:

      The fact that she can’t do anything is the exact reason why a lot of people are calling to abolish the monarchy. Why give god like status, money, and power to someone who when it matters most cannot protect the english people and their democracy.

      • Nivedita says:

        What is democratic will according to you, is it only your opinion which is valid or other’s opinion matters as well?

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        The point being made is that Queen is a symbolic figurehead but she has no real power…Boris would have just gone around the Queen to accomplish what he wanted. But I’ve never gotten the love & adoration commenters on this site bestowed on the Queen or Charles. They are members of BRF & they are so elitist & so out of touch. The only person that appeared relatable was Princess Diana & she was problematic. This site ignores glaring issues people have because oh they dress so well or they play a PR game well. The only member that appears to be likeable, outside of the kids, is Meghan. Possibly Harry, at times. But I don’t need to hear how he wants to lead a normal life. Not after this.

      • Taryn says:

        @Nivedita perfectly fine if you have an opposing opinion to the monarchy and queen! I was just reiterating that the points in your comment is the basis many are using to call for abolishing the monarchy.

    • Arnk says:

      A hard Brexit would most likely devastate the UK’s economy and the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg will probably profit off it while the most vulnerable will suffer further. This is way beyond a simple leave/remain vote now.

    • Eliza says:

      Previously there have been these types of requests elsewhere and the figurehead took a few days/ weeks to sign off, basically to show disapproval or that it wasn’t an easy decision. She just got out her rubber stamp and got him out of her office as quick as possible.

      • Bookworm says:

        Well, she’s on vacation! How much time should she have to waste on such trivialities when there are horses to ride and gin-soaked lunches to get to?

        I really believe this is how she thinks – oh, they’ll sort it, just give them what they want.

    • Nanea says:

      You mean the handful of Tory people’s will that actually selected BoJo as a Prime Minister, yes?

      Because the majority of the British citizens didn’t vote for BoJo or Brexit, much less for this kind of coup. The referendum back then was not to be about an actual decision to leave the EU, but merely a way of testing the mood. And then the liars like BoJo and Farage stepped in, remember the NHS bus? And Arron Banks with his millions of £ of dark money, and the Russian troll bot farms, and many remainers still stayed home, because they thought the referendum was only to be a test to see where the UK stood.

      Since finding out about the consequences of a No Deal-Brexit, Operation Yellowhammer etc etc, even die-hard leavers have had second thoughts.

      Even constitutional lawyers have agreed QE II could have said no.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Thanks for the reminder of the complexities of this situation, the tenuous nature of Boris Johnson’s grip on power, and the negotiations’ tortured history of outside interference. Also, the referendum vote in the end was so close – what, like 51-49? Hardly “the people’s will.”

      • StarGreek says:

        Perfectly explained Nanea

    • Wadsworth the Butler says:

      I don’t often find myself agreeing with Dominic Grieve, but he said it best: “The Queen is not a decorative extra.” She is the Head of State. She has the power to appoint and, if need be, to remove a Prime Minister. How she chooses to use or not use her powers is almost entirely a matter of convention.

    • StarGreek says:

      Nivedita, before calling us stupid you could have had a look at the very competent comments done by constitutional lawyers yesterday. You might also have found out that you got it slightly wrong….

    • Jaded says:

      @Nivedita: Calling us all stupid isn’t appropriate and I’d appreciate it if, in future, you’d tone down the aggressive language. If you took the time to read about it, the Queen actually stated back in January a request for “respecting different points of view” and “coming together to seek out the common ground.” In line with her constitutional obligation to remain neutral on political matters, she revealed nothing about her views on Prime Minister Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement or, say, the northern Irish backstop. But with these carefully parsed words it was clear she was throwing her weight behind Mrs. May’s deal.

      She was very concerned about the amount of rancor and division and wanted nothing more than a peaceful decision. At a speech at a Women’s Institute in Norfolk later on she commented “As we look for new answers in the modern age, I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes, like speaking well of each other and respecting different points of view; coming together to seek out the common ground; and never losing sight of the bigger picture,” Clearly a veiled reference to end the turmoil.

      So you see she’s not merely a “figurehead” and is well schooled in sending a subtle message that doesn’t convey a particularly political bias one way or another.

    • Lorelei says:

      @NIVEDITA, yes, every single commenter here is stupid, except you.

      Tone down the hostility.

  11. Arnk says:

    I saw a few tweets along the lines of “an unelected man met and unelected woman to ask if he could pause democracy” and yeah that’s the state of the UK today.

    The queen and the rest of the royal family only look out for themselves and their survival, anyone who thinks she thinks of “her people” is seriously deluded.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      To any UK CB poster: Could QEII force an election?

      • helonearth says:

        No, she doesn’t have any political power to do so.

      • StarGreek says:


        No. She can remove a PM after a vote of no confidence though. I’d bet Corbyn at the opposition was ready to table the no confidence motion but now the parliament doesn’t sit so… nothing, all stopped.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Has Corbyn and Labour ask for an audience with QEII? Can Corbyn and Labour make such as request?

      • annakarenina says:

        Lolling at the idea of Corbyn sitting in front of the Queen. Boris is awful but clever. Corbyn is slovenly, anti-Semitic, and famously, erm, not-so-bright. She may have rolled her eyes at Boris but presenting her with a man who always has food on his face and a poorly-fitting suit might finally make her snap.

    • Seraphina says:

      That’s deep and would make many realize how bad it is when worded like that.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      I LOVE Waterford Whispers, the article about Prince Andrew under suicide watch is great.

      A little sample; “But Prince Andrew, yeah, he’s in safe hands. We know he’s feeling very stressed out over a number of things; his personal life, his work demands, his close links to a known sex trafficker and allegations that he was up to all sorts with his associate Mr. Epstein… so he’s just the kind of person who we should be keeping a close eye on, just to make sure he doesn’t go and do something that would be both tragic and convenient”.

    • Seraphina says:

      @Dirk, thank you for sharing that link. I’ve been entertained for this morning. Good stuff.

  12. Lenn says:

    No need to abolosh completely (though I am for it), just take away all political power. Other countries have done that. The monarchies there only have ceremonial meaning.

    • Brunswickstoval says:

      Then why pay for them? It’s the complete waste of money that does my head in.

      • Lenn says:

        I completely agree. But al least it would just be wasting money and not wasting the entire future of a country. Monarchies are completely outdated institutions.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If the crown does not have a function that can be performed then time to give the monarchy the old heave-ho. QEII and hubby can relocate permanently to Balmoral and the rest can go to Mystique.

    • helonearth says:

      The Queen doesn’t have any political power – she has to remain neutral. She cannot vote.

      • StarGreek says:

        She cannot vote but she can declare war and remove a PM if a motion of no confidence is tabled and passes.
        Not a ‘ceremonial’ role as some here assume.

      • annakarenina says:

        She does not “have to remain neutral”. The BRF has a long history of doing nothing of the sort.

  13. (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

    You have to KNOW you’re a despicable piece of human garbage if The Orange Sh!t Sta!n loves or admires you. Maybe Her Maj *didn’t* have such a bad time with Dump as we thought? While I never thought her to be some paragon of virtue (as she proved between her coldness/being so out of touch after Diana’s death, and giving Pedo all those medals and the Trade Ambassador title after the first Pedo Party came out), but I never thought she was quite this amoral either.

    Truly, if ALL she is there to be is ceremonial, and rubber stamp anything some dangerous moron puts in front of her, WHY BOTHER with those stupid red boxes of govt papers or even to have her as head of state??

  14. ds says:

    As someone who’s from EU, living in UK I find this is a “get them of the real problem” situation. First of all UK does not have a proper written Constitution and is putting the power in the hands of PM and a ceremonial head of state. A monarch, as it is, has no power to really turn PM down. Whatever anyone was saying – if she interfered during Theresa’s time she would have cause a Constitutional crisis. This is now showing to be one. I do agree that they should abolish the Monarchy, they should have done that ages ago. But right now, at this second, everyone should focus on the Brexit mess first. This is 5 weeks of suspension. It is usally 5 days. What Johnson is doing is either pushing a No Deal Brexit or, I think his end game are general elections. It’s a risky game, but a possible one. And yes, by all means abolish the Monarchy, but stop obsessing about that and intsead go after the heads of Boris and his crowd first. People got out yesterday, but not in the numbers they should have. People should have been on the streets, and they weren’t. It never seems like the things are completely over until they really are and there’s no turning back.

  15. Mila says:

    Genuinely curious, can someone tell me: is it even possible to abolish the monarchy? if so, how? And what is supposed to happen to the younger royals? Are they sent into early retirement (on the tax payer’s dime once again?), or do they need to find real jobs?

    • OriginalLala says:

      I doubt any of them will need to get real jobs, they have enough money to live off. Most of their personal fortunes don’t get used because they sponge off us taxpayers from the UK and Commonwealth countries.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Abolition of the Monarchy is detailed in A.N. Wilson’s: The Decline & Fall of the House of Windsor.

      In a nutshell per A.N. Wilson: The House of Commons passes an act of abolition, The House of Lords gives consent. The monarch signs the bill and the Mountbatten-Windsors-Glucksburgs have 6 months to pack-up and vacate crown property. The Monarch keeps the Duchy of Lancaster, Sandringham & Balmoral. The PoW & the Ducky of Cornwall would require some legal advice and negotiation.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There is no way in hell they’d get Lancaster and Cornwall, since they do not own either of those. The Windsors would get their private wealth, Balmoral, and Sandringham. Royal Collection belongs to the people, jewelry would take sorting out.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @nota, I am not saying she would get to keep the Duchy of Lancaster, A.N. Wilson is saying she would due to Blanche of Lancaster, daughter of the first Duke of Lancaster, the wife of John Gaunt and mother of Henry IV…aka Henry Bolingbroke. The Duchy of Lancaster came to the crown through marriage not conquest or attainment. A.N. Wilson lays out the Lancaster argument in his book which is a great read.

        I would suggest reading the A.N. Wilson book to anyone who has a “historical interest in the monarchy” not who is wearing the crown but in the evolution of the monarch as a branch of the English-UK government.

      • The Hench says:

        Thanks for the book recommendation, BayTampaBay, will definitely check that out. I am also chuckling over a snippet from your quote about the Queen having to sign her own abolition notice in the light of the current debate raging over whether she has any option other than to rubber stamp the Government’s will. I just have this mental image of “just sign here, your Majesty. That’s lovely. Now, have you called a taxi already?”

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m disagreeing with Wilson, not you Bay. In today’s political climate, the Windsors would be lucky to get out with their heads. With all the deals, protections, freedom *from* information acts, re. the Lancaster Duchy for years? They’d have an enormous legal fight on their hands if they tried to claim it.

        Sounds like another good book to add to my shame list.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @The Hench, Cannot take credit for that snippet. It is from A.N. Wilson who is a very entertaining writer. Signing the abolition bill would be QEII’s last official royal duty. Sign the bill, put in Red Box, hand over the key and exit stage left.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @nota, did not think you were arguing with me as we have debated forever and will continue to debate ideas as long as Celebitchy & Kaiser lets us hang here. I just wanted to make clear to other posters that “we” were not in anyway attacking each other just discussing different POVs which may or may not be our own.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Wish we had a hug button here, Bay. I’ll have to go old school ascii

        { }

    • Lady D says:

      …and who gets to be the one to fire her?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The House of Commons is the body that would fire her. A group of Monarch Abolitionist would submit a bill to parliament to be voted on.

  16. line says:

    If she has no political power when democracy is clearly menaced, why should the British support them financial them. So the better is to abolish all this systems institution. In any case the youngest members of royal family want a “normal life like their aristocrasy friends”

  17. BaronSamedi says:

    I don’t understand why so many people are saying that she did this to protect herself? Boris Johnson is absolutely after the Royals next and he deliberately cornered her into this situation to stoke the public anger.

    This move doesn’t help her at all and I think she fell into the ‘never explain’ trap by not making it absolutely clear that she understands the will of the people but can’t do nothing but comply with this request.

    As far as I understand Boris Johnson would have been happy either way. Either he gets Parliament shut down and force through a hard Brexit OR there’s a constitutional crisis and a new election. And because people are somehow stupid Johnson would have won and then could have taken his time with his agenda that way.

    He’s actually scarier than Trump because he’s absolutely not dumb and has an actual agenda.

    • OriginalLala says:

      I saw an interview with him from years ago and was stunned at how articulate and intelligent he came across. I dont know if his current buffoony persona is a deliberate act but he is definitely smart and very dangerous because of it.

      • Nic919 says:

        Confusing Boris with Dump is a mistake because Boris is a Cambridge educated elite who isn’t an illiterate fool. He knows exactly what he’s doing. The disheveled look is so that the anti elites don’t get intimidated and think he is one of them. Boris is not one of them. He is as elite as they come. He’s not Putin’s puppet or compromised like dump so he is in control of what is happening.

      • StarGreek says:


        It is a manufactured act that has to disguise he is evil and twisted to the masses.

        He is not as stupid as Dump at all and he is also Cambridge-educated.

      • The Hench says:

        Boris went to Oxford. Your points about his intelligence are quite right – just the university is wrong!

      • hogtowngooner says:

        John Oliver’s segment on him discussed this. It’s all an act. He knows what he’s doing.

      • OriginalLala says:

        I’m Canadian so wasn’t really aware of him until Brexit so thank you all for the info! – wow, good to know my thinking that this persona was an act to appeal to the people is true….dangerous type of person.

      • StarGreek says:


        Oops! The fact I made that mistake speaks volumes about how much I care about the man. I should have said Oxbridge to stay on the safe side lol

      • Nic919 says:

        Same. I knew he was there with David Cameron and in the bullingdon group but I confused oxford with Cambridge.

      • MeganBot2000 says:

        The buffoon thing is 100% an act.

        Remember the zip line thing? He staged that.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Other than geographical location is there any real difference between Oxford and Cambridge? It appears to me that they graduate the same ilk.

    • notasugarhere says:

      He has a force in the background too, a la Steve Bannon, Dominic Cummings. Touted as a “disruptor” which is the polite way of saying, “Out to destroy anything he wants, sees every hole in the legal system, will exploit them all”.

  18. Pixie says:

    As someone who currently lives in the UK and studied Law here, this has been the most surreal and bizarre scandal ever. The Queen is a symbolic, figurehead whose opinion (politics or otherwise) carries absolutely no value, and is not representative of anyone but herself. She was not elected, and lives lavishly off the people’s taxes, as approved by the government. The head of parliament, our prime minister, instructs her what to do, purely out of convention and to fool people into thinking the Monarchy has some practical use, and then she does it. Quite frankly, the idea that people would want an unelected body who doesn’t have the slightest clue about how the vast majority of people live or what they want, to interfere in our politics is beyond parody. You really want some aristocrat born into power ‘throwing roadblocks’ or making it difficult for Parliament to do their jobs? In any case, that’s not her job and if the monarchy started interfering in politics I can guarantee we wouldn’t be a monarchy for much longer. Plus, for all the people going ‘what’s the point of the Monarchy if they have no power?’ – There is no point, and millions of people have been saying it needs to be abolished for decades. Fingers crossed it’s finally time.

    • Taryn says:

      Agree with everything you said

    • pearlime says:

      Very well put!

      A correspondent on BBC said yesterday that TQ will be livid because she has been drawn into politics, which she wants to avoid, with headlines stating ‘Queen grants …’ as if she had any say in this.

    • Jb says:

      American here and I hope for the UKs sake it happens as well!!! I visited London last year and it had nothing to do with the monarchy And I intend to visit again because what an amazing country filled with history and culture and once again NOT because of the Queen. Crossing my fingers too!!!

    • The Hench says:

      So agree. This whole episode has thrown a bright light on the craziness of having the BRF.

  19. Franny says:

    There is no way Trump wrote that tweet himself.

  20. Maria says:

    So I guess we’ve got two camps here:

    1.)” The Queen is a figurehead who had absolutely no choice and had to acquiesce.”

    Ok. So what is the point of her being there, to people making this argument? That she is neutral? Not really. What’s the point of someone being neutral if they can’t do anything?

    2.) “She did have a choice, and could constitutionally refuse due to royal prerogative which is spelled out.”

    Probably wouldn’t have done anything, but it would have been a nice gesture to know she doesn’t throw her lot in with racist fascists. But of course she doesn’t want to make waves – because then that would open her and her whole family up to questioning and possible reform. So she said yes, gave an unusually quick rubber stamp for this type of issue, because this way, she only loses popular opinion which she obviously doesn’t care about, instead of losing money or status by saying no.

    • StarGreek says:

      Either way, it is clearly time for the English monarchy to go.

      I said English because postBrexit Northern Ireland and Scotland will try their best to leave the Disunited Kingdom.

  21. pearlime says:

    Can I make a comparison with Austria?

    The monarchy (Habsburgers) was abolished about 100 years ago and summer tourism is still strong, their former castles and palaces are a huge draw and some traditions still preveil.

    Politics faced a parliamentary crisis earlier this year (Ibizagate). Their elected head of state followed the clear rules of the constitution and applied them with a healthy dose of common sense. First talking with the PM to replace parts of the government and after the the first successful vote of no confidence in their history appointing an interim government that is not directly affiliated with any party but that all parties were ok with. Work in parliament was resumed and important legislation agreed on. The head of state had to make some decisions that were not in line with his own views, but he made sure to explain what was going on, to keep everyone calm, address the public multiple times AND keep in talks with all party leaders throughout the crisis and after.
    Thats democracy.

    • StarGreek says:

      Yes that’s democracy, quite far from us in UK who have to stand this fascist autocracy (Johnson and his cabinet are a bunch of openly racist bigots).

  22. Peanutbuttr says:

    If you can, watch at least the first episode of the Dark Crystal Netflix series tomorrow. It is so on point with what is going on in the world today: power hungry vultures literally sucking the life out of the common people while the very victims sit there, do nothing and justify all of it

    And add to that an old crone who is supposed to be keeping watch over everything is off looking at the stars.

  23. Jb says:

    Shout it from the rooftops! Ppl will still want to visit despite no Royals! Seriously remove the “power” they have and enough with the born to rule mentality. If it’s only in title, remove the title and let them live their crazy rich lives without the country paying for all their trips safety and renovations!!! But doubt it’ll ever happen because of “tradition” and “history “…guess all I’m saying is VIVA LA REVOLUTION”!!!!!

  24. tw says:

    The UK should #abolishthemonarchy. Liquidate it all. Take that $$$$$ and give it to the country, the people. I would love to see all of those freeloaders get a J.O.B.

    • Rogue says:

      Abolishment of the monarchy would be great – the less scapegoats like the EU etc the right wing press has or less distractions the better. I’ve said before though, I don’t see the money spent on royals being diverted in a meaningful way if its not in line with political ideology of the government of the day. Most conservative politicians are into small government, low public spending and want to limit the welfare state so don’t see social welfare programs or public housing getting a great boost. There is also a view that leading Brexit politicians want to privatise the national health service so feel like they will deliberately deprive NHS of funding to ‘prove’ it’s not fit for purpose.

      The royals won’t be hurting badly if the monarchy ends. Sure even the most minor royal has a decent amount of private wealth. Think they will be set up similar to ex prime ministers or presidents. UK will probably still provide some security and connections they have made as royals will mean some can walk into non executive director positions, great roles in not for profit organisations/foundations or organisations like the UN or seriously rich business friends like the Bransons, Duke of Westminister etc will hook them up. Plus no constraints on commercial activities so could do lucrative biographies etc. Maybe we’d get some real tea e.g. what happened that caused the ‘fab four’ to split.

      Harry has done two tours as a soldier so isn’t unfamiliar with life in the real world. I can see why he would have been convinced to stay when he previously wanted to leave royal life. Imagine it was out of loyalty to his grandmother and father. There would have been a real furore if Diana’s popular son had left the royal family especially as some people still believe conspiracy of royal involvement in Diana’s death. Would have been a real blow to the Queen and Prince Charles as well as public acceptance of Camilla.

    • Marianne says:

      Even if the monarchy is abolished, its not like the current royals are actually gonna get jobs. They might serve on a board of a charity or something like that…but its not like you see’d them in a typical 9-5 job.

  25. Eenie Googles says:

    But we need them because they drive tourism!
    France got rid of their monarchy and no one EVER wants to go to FRANCE!

    In truth, if the palaces could be opened to the public a la Versailles or the Hermitage, it would be a massive boost to tourism in the UK.

    • Dee Kay says:

      The Louvre was another royal palace (of the French monarchy). The former royal residences of France are huge draws and it’s awesome that regular folk can stroll through them for entertainment.

  26. AerynSong32 says:

    Yank with a quick question. One of the posters above linked a very informative article from the BBC dated July 17, 2019. From the article it appears this closure was either under discussion or a district possibility over a month ago. However, much of the discussion here seems to point to Her Majesty making a quick decision upon the PM’s request, as opposed to the Canadian Governor General in a similar situation. Is it possible HM was seeking advice/considering this matter for a few week knowing the PM might be coming to her with this? Or does protocol/convention indicate such advance consideration is inappropriate? I’ve checked Celebitchy every weekday for several years and very much enjoy the discussion. Thanks!!

    • StarGreek says:

      I have seen many suggesting that indeed she knew of Johnson asking her such a thing. He lies with no issues in front of the camera but he might have not lied to her and possibly gave her a shoutout before the formal request.

    • Arpeggi says:

      I’m fairly certain it was seen as a possible thing for quite a while and that the Queen counselors had been studying her options (or lack of) for some time. Even when the prorogation happened in Canada, we had talks about it for days before Harper met with the GG and the opposition parties were in talks about meeting with her as well. QEII was aware the request would be coming (would it be only because an audience would be requested!) and she had no choice but consent, making BoJo wait before giving it would have been useless and would have upset quite a lot of people who would have seen it as interfering… And there would have been calls to abolish the monarchy as well!

      There needs to be demonstrations and judicial actions to try to avoid a hard Brexit, cancel the prorogation and/or call for a new referendum. Opposition needs to come from the people, not the monarch

  27. Rogue says:

    Not a fan but not convinced the Queen was pro Brexit. Wasn’t there a German ambassador that said she had made pro EU comments back in the 70s including allegedly that UK’s future was in the EU?

    Unless her investors are betting on the pound sliding etc, can’t see how Brexit would benefit the monarchy and therefore she would be for it. UK hasn’t been this divided for hundreds of years and could result in the union breaking up and didn’t she make her wish for union to stay together somewhat clear during the Scottish referendum. She’s also made comments on unity in her last Christmas speech.

    Economic turmoil means more scrutiny on nation’s spending on royals and more likely people would want to kick monarchy out. Plus it had been rumoured for months that she was going to be dragged into Brexit because of Parliament’s impotence which would only highlight how powerless her role is. She is a figurehead and has to act on the advice of her prime minister so if she had said no this would be a political interference and would result in a crisis. Saying yes also results in a crisis. Either leads to a backlash against her.

    Up to elected MPs or the people via the courts to make the next step on this parliament shut down.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Never understood why it seems like Labour and the LibDems are just sitting on the side lines, munching on popcorn & Cracker Jacks and watching this shit-show go down.

      • Rogue says:

        @Bay the problem is people like Corbyn aren’t pro EU themselves and his party is full of people in cities like London who are pro EU but also traditional Labour strongholds who voted strongly to leave so how do you balance these competing views and not drive voters to other parties.

        The struggle is also respecting “democratic vote” (leaving aside skullduggery of the EU vote) to leave but practicalities of untangling yourself from organisation you’ve been part of for 40+ years and which has been profitable for the UK. There’s no real consensus on what future relationship public wants with the EU. also apart from the extremists, who wants to be party that tanks the UK’s economy and then gets punished at the polls for it.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Rouge, so are you basically saving that the leave/remain vote by the public did not fall along party lines and citizens who voted to leave voted “leave” for many different reasons or potential problem solving with some of these reasons/problems for leaving not actually being solved by leaving the UK?

      • The Hench says:

        @BayTampaBay – hello again! Yes, @Rouge is correct. The leave/remain vote fell more along by area/demographic than by party lines. Many Northern, Labour voters in more deprived areas voted for Brexit. Metropolitan centres, eg London were strongly Remain.

        As for the reasons – there was a big poll done a few years ago, after the vote in robust enough numbers to be solid as a guide and by respected pollsters – asking why people voted leave or remain. The number one reason for people voting remain, it reported, was the economy. The equivalent for leavers was sovereignty.

        As an aside, it also reported that leavers understood remainers’ reasons for voting as they did better than vice versa – when asked, remainers erroneously thought leavers were all about immigration and dislike of the EU. Yes, of course, there are sadly people who voted out believing that would end immigration but those people are a stupid minority. They, do, however, get over-represented by the media as they stir people on both sides and therefore generate clicks/readership. The UK economy needs and benefits hugely from workers from all over the EU.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @The Hench, “The equivalent for leavers was sovereignty.” Is Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg examples of this “sovereignty”?

        This is a very difficult concept for Yanks to grasp when you do not have an elected head of state and the Prime Minister is not accountable to the Crown or Citizens.

        Who is held accountable to the voting public?

      • StarGreek says:

        @the hench

        70% of Leave voters in northern counties voted to leave because of immigration.

        There was a local poll up here showing that. So sovereignty might have been main reason for southern counties but immigration was reason no 1 here in the north.

        Which seems absurd as percentage of immigrants is low in northern counties due to lack of jobs. But you know, those who talk funny are not really accepted out of London.

      • The Hench says:

        @StarGreek – yes, there was some crazy, local voting based on fear rather than fact and whipped up by the media (DM has a lot to answer for). I believe one area in Wales overwhelmingly voted out due to “immigration” even though they didn’t have a single immigrant living there.

        I believe you said you weren’t British but are living here. Can I extend a virtual hug to you and say there are millions of Brits who welcome you and know immigration has benefitted this country in so many ways.

    • Tiff says:

      If the monarchy was abolished and Kate realized she would never be queen… how long before she leaves Will? What would Will and Kate do for income? Harry and Duchess Meghan would be fine because Harry married a woman with a talent and a craft but Will and Kate… I mean would she go back to the party planning business?

      I want to see the fan fiction.

      • Dee Kay says:

        Both Meghan and Kate are independently wealthy. Kate’s parents’ party planning business made them millionaires. Meghan has millions of her own from Suits. Both couples would be fine, financially. As an American, I would want Meghan and Harry to move back here, they would have a dope social circle and their parties would be covered in Vanity Fair.

      • Thea says:

        Moreover, if will isn’t to be king, will Carole still be feeding him cheesy toast and tucking him in at night?

      • .chunkyLa says:

        I hope Kate is covertly collecting receipts of all of the shenanigan’s the royal family have been sweeping under the rug for decades. If the Monarchy is abolished she could sell the info to the press and make a tidy sum. I do think both Kate and Meghan will be fine if the Monarchy is abolished. Pampered poodles William and Harry will be the ones that will struggle.

    • The Hench says:

      Hey @Bay – I caveat this heavily with the proviso that I am NO expert in politics but I will give you my best answer! Like them or loathe them, both Boris and Jacob R-M were elected as MPs by ‘the people’ in the last general election in June 2017.

      Boris was selected as Prime Minister by the relatively tiny number of Conservative Party members and not elected but he is still accountable to the electorate as much as a US president is – ie we get to vote for/against them every set number of years. In the UK, that is five years.

      The UK referendum in 2016 voted to leave. Yes, it was a slim majority of 4% but that’s still a majority. As such, Boris is trying to enact the expressed will of the people by trying to take us out of the EU – ideally by renegotiating the deal with the EU (the current one having been rejected 3x by Parliament) but, failing that, by exiting with no deal. I find it helpful to look at the principles of this by reversing the vote. Just for a second, let’s imagine that Remain had won the referendum by a 4% majority and Boris was currently trying to negotiate with the EU to keep the UK in whilst Parliament was doing everything it could to take the UK out. Would you think of him as being ‘not accountable’ in that situation?!?

      It would be far better for him if he can strike a new deal with the EU because, if No Deal happens then he will almost certainly face a successful vote of no confidence once parliament are back in action meaning he will have to go to the country in a general election three years earlier than otherwise required. In a way, the course of action he is currently taking is making him more speedily accountable to the electorate, not less.

      (I say all this, BTW, not as a fan of Boris or of No Deal. The whole thing is an utter sh*tshow).

  28. notasugarhere says:

    Oh look, W&K will accompany their children to their first day of school in September. Rose Who? Jeffrey Who? Boris Who?

    • Tourmaline says:

      Wouldn’t it be weird if they didn’t accompany their own children to their first day of school? It’s a little cray to think that they are trying to deflect from something with that.

      • .chunkyLa says:

        Yeah, especially when William already accompanied George to his first day at the exact same school 2 years ago. Kate would have been there as well had she not been ill.

    • Casey says:

      Clearly a PR stunt that will backfire spectacularly.

      • notasugarhere says:

        We’ll see if they allow this to be photographed, or if they ban cameras and only release their own photos again.

  29. Ms. Wendy says:

    Posting this for no reason in particular:


  30. DD says:

    The pub where H&M went has denied the visit happened?

  31. bamaborn says:

    Thea…do you want to give Carole a stroke? The thought of Wills not being king would be devastating for her. Think it would be worst for her than Kate. Lol

  32. kerwood says:

    I really don’t think people understand what power, or lack thereof, the Queen actually has. She’s a figurehead and it’s been that way for ages. The Queen’s purpose is basically to give the world (and British people who voted to leave) the impression that Britain actually has power in the world. It’s not true. If the monarchy was abolished, Great Britain would be exactly the same the day after abolition as it was the day before. The biggest change might be the decline in tourism and the anguish of Americans and other nations who same to care much more about the monarchy than the British do.

    This is Boris Johnson’s mess. Personally, I think it sucks that a 93 year old lady is being held responsible for Johnson’s attempted coup. Blame her for protecting her pedophile son or for not protecting her grand-daughter in law. But this is ALL BORIS.

    • thea says:

      really? you think tourism would decline? how many people actually go to the uk for the sole purpose of seeing the royal family? it’s not like the queen does meet and greets. if we abolish the monarchy today, buckingham palace would still be there (it’s not their’s) and we can open it up to the public. wanna see kensington? open that up too. etc. etc. etc. i mean, france got rid of their royals, it’s not like no one ever goes to versailles or the louvre. germany got rid of theirs too, and no one ever flocks to neuschwanstein. austria did away with the hapsburgs, and no one ever goes to schönbrunn. oh wait….

      sorry, i never got the tourist argument when it comes to the royals.

    • Marianne says:

      I dont think the tourism would decline that much. Sure, you probably wouldnt see people flying to Britain to watch a royal wedding (although with Harry married…you probably wouldnt see as much attention on a royal wedding until George/Elizabeth/Louis were having a wedding which would be somewhere 20-30 years from now). But other than, theres plenty of stuff still to do and see there. Even if the Queen physically wasnt in Buckingham Palace, people would still come to take pictures, plus theres other notable spots like Big Ben, London Bridge, the London Eye, plus maybe you want to a catch a show on the West End….

  33. Goodbye says:

    Anyone who says that Brexit was democratically chosen by the people don’t know what democracy is. The Brits had to vote for remain or leave without knowing what remain or leave even meant. What should have happened is that a deal should had been made BEFORE the referendum so the people would know what leave ACTUALLY meant, not what the lobbyist fascists meant by it. Remain should have been with information about working towards a better EU with easier pathways for the people making these changes without the need to leave the union. But then again… The referendum was never about democracy to begin with. It was fascists taking advantage of an uncertain time to benefit their own agendas. Now we are facing the end of an era and the end of The United Kingdom.

  34. TheMummy says:

    So, just out of curiosity, what would the process even be for abolishing the monarchy? I assume it theoretically could be done, but what would that process be?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Parliament, The Commons and The Lords, passes a bill for abolition of the monarchy, QEII signs the bill, QEII turns in keys to Red Boxes, Keys to Windsor Castle and keys to Buckingham Palace, QEII signs a contract with a moving company to remove her personal stuff then calls a taxi for transport to Sandringham or Balmoral.

  35. xo says:


  36. Molly says:

    It’s time for BRF to end.