Royalist media

[Lozzer]

Yesterday the lobbyist group Republic demonstrated against the monarchy and that pageant that is the Diamond Jubilee by the River Thames. It was legal, and in conjunction with the police force. Estimated numbers of protesters range from 1000 or 1200. However, despite the legality and official arrangements, only 100 were permitted to protest by the Thames before the police force and royal security 'kettled' them. While demonstrators decided to accumulate in other places, the splinter of protesters provided an opportune moment for the media to focus on them, and report the story in such a way as to portray Republic's efforts as futile and as a 'damp squib'.

I'm not sure what happened to freedom of expression in this country, but it would seem the establishment was intent on playing down the significance of republican sentiment yesterday. I'm really quite annoyed.

From Republic's Facebook page:

Over 1,000 protesters have joined our protest, making it the biggest anti-monarchy demonstration in modern times!

Private security staff started preventing access to the main protest site early in the afternoon, so a second larger protest formed on Tooley St.

It's a great atmosphere - there's still time to join in

An example of how it was reported in the press:

It bragged that hundreds of supporters from across the country would descend on the capital for the ‘biggest and boldest anti-monarchy protest of modern times’. In the end barely 60 showed up.

I am really very disappointed in my country, and the integrity of the British press. It's not as if the true number and transpirations of the events weren't really covered, since it was recorded live on Sky News. But official report completely marginalised the reality of what had happened, and rendered the protest in a similar, disingenuous fashion.

[Bella Fortuna]

One of our members was there, I believe.

[mistermack]

I totally agree that the main media in this country are totally committed to maximizing support for the monarchy. It's completely blatant. There isn't even a pretense of neutrality.

When some royal gets a miserably tiny crowd at some function, the camera zooms right in, so that you can't see it. Every effort is made to give the impression of much-loved national treasures.

This has to be policy dictated from the very top. There is no way that the journalists are all staunch supporters of the royal family. And I would hope that they don't enjoy bending the truth in that fashion.

Of course people came out to see the river parade. People love a show. Any show. So even people who don't care much for the royals would have a look.
I would LOVE to see how the popularity held up, without all this free promotion that the royals enjoy.
I think the approval ratings would sink pretty damn quick.
Because people are so gullible.

[Lozzer]

Indeed. The Diamond Jubilee isn't to commemorate 60 years of successful leadership, but 60 years of a profoundly effective PR campaign. It's grotesque.

I'd suggest there is some hand behind the veil manipulating their exposure, but I'd feel uncomfortably like a conspiracy theorist--even though it's becoming increasing evident, and credible.

I'm embarrassed to be British

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Time for you guys to start talking like that.

[Lozzer]

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Time for you guys to start talking like that.

Oh, we certainly do when it comes to the loss of autonomy to the EU. We seem to have a greater tolerance for domestic impositions of autocracy, though.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Time for you guys to start talking like that.

Oh, we certainly do when it comes to the loss of autonomy to the EU. We seem to have a greater tolerance for domestic impositions of autocracy, though.

Time to start, if you're ever going to be free. Be your own Thomas Paine. You could be a royal Paine if you wanted to.

[jaydot]

i keep wondering why it is that the government is so keen on sending two people well past retirement age on strenuous treks all over the country when other people of a similar age are putting their feet up and taking it easy. i'm not in the least surprised that prince philip has been taken ill. dammit, the man's 90 and they still keep wheeling the poor sod out and making him perform.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

i keep wondering why it is that the government is so keen on sending two people well past retirement age on strenuous treks all over the country when other people of a similar age are putting their feet up and taking it easy. i'm not in the least surprised that prince philip has been taken ill. dammit, the man's 90 and they still keep wheeling the poor sod out and making him perform.

They determine that the Pope is dead by hitting him in the forehead with a silver hammer. This way sounds more fun.

[Svartalf]

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Time for you guys to start talking like that.

Oh, we certainly do when it comes to the loss of autonomy to the EU. We seem to have a greater tolerance for domestic impositions of autocracy, though.

autocracy? C'mon, you folks forgot what it was to be ruled by an autocrat the day Lackland put his seal onto the Magna Carta.

[Lozzer]

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Time for you guys to start talking like that.

Oh, we certainly do when it comes to the loss of autonomy to the EU. We seem to have a greater tolerance for domestic impositions of autocracy, though.

autocracy? C'mon, you folks forgot what it was to be ruled by an autocrat the day Lackland put his seal onto the Magna Carta.

Lovely bastardisation of English history.

[Rum]

I'm no royalist but let's be realistic. The monarchy has no power. They have been neutered as part of the British Way of reasonableness in the slow transition to democracy.

All democracies work differently. Ours has a powerless head of state who inherits the role and becomes a slave to that role these days - as an aside.

Be careful what you wish for in the name of fairness, logic and the right thing!

[Lozzer]

I'm no royalist but let's be realistic. The monarchy has no power. They have been neutered as part of the British Way of reasonableness in the slow transition to democracy.

All democracies work differently. Ours has a powerless head of state who inherits the role and becomes a slave to that role these days - as an aside.

Be careful what you wish for in the name of fairness, logic and the right thing!

No power? I suppose that's why they're dragged across the globe to curry the business interests of foreign investors, and such pseudo-diplomatic clap trap.

Prince Charles is well known for his interfering in the development projects. He only need to write a letter, or have a gentle word to change or halt building plans. Monarchy is the residual political design of the Dark Ages, and symptomatic of democratic regression, not transition.

[Svartalf]

You mistake influence for power... Jug ears may wield a lot of the former, but if somebody really wanted to ignore the jabbering monkey, they could do so and carlito would be losing face, because there's nothing he can legally do most of the time.
Same thing with the foreign missions, the royals are just faces, they don't dictate agenda or terms.

[Lozzer]

You mistake influence for power... Jug ears may wield a lot of the former, but if somebody really wanted to ignore the jabbering monkey, they could do so and carlito would be losing face, because there's nothing he can legally do most of the time.
Same thing with the foreign missions, the royals are just faces, they don't dictate agenda or terms.

Again: Prince Charles.

Interfering is illegal. He does it, anyway. He's made no secret of his intentions once he ascends to the throne.