There’s no contradiction in accepting that we have a relatively powerless constitutional monarchy while also supporting republicanism… I’ll always be a republican, and support the abolition of the monarchy and prefer to be a parliamentary republic despite that. (I don’t like the idea of becoming an executive presidential republic like France or the US, FWIW.)I mean... he's also a complete figurehead. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Charles III is not now, nor likely to try to become, the dictator of England. Even under the Tories, Parliament would have his head if he tried, if for no other reason than they want to have that power for themselves.
It's honestly very weird. The only authority he commands is that people play along with his little game of pretend. But he can wield that authority with as hard and as heavy of a club as he desires.
Do you suppose that Cromwell's excesses might have poisoned the well in that regard?Anyway, republicanism is very heavily repressed in Britain. We have no real organisations, no flags, icons or symbols, no political party behind us, no anthem. It’s still treated with disdain and an eccentric fringe view rather than, say, something reasonable like wanting to have a democratic head of state.
Most British people I suspect probably don’t know who Cromwell was, let alone that his ‘commonwealth’ was a theocratic dictatorship. It’s a long time ago anyway. It’s more to do with keeping the vestiges of the feudal class system in place (remember we still have an appointed House of Lords with remnant hereditary peers).Do you suppose that Cromwell's excesses might have poisoned the well in that regard?
Copy and pasted the wrong link, not the one I was intending, but doesn’t really help that we have to check passports that had free movement before. All this decaying infrastructure was never up to the task of even a mild Brexit, but politicians gonna politics.I can't blame this on Brexit. Just an aging infrastructure that's showing the cracks.