It appears the mass media is not the only place those crying afoul of royal reverence are being discouraged. A 22-year-old Scottish man — weirdly enough wearing a Melbourne City FC football top — was arrested yesterday for shouting that Prince Andrew was a “sick old man” as the procession for Queen Elizabeth II passed through Edinburgh.
Two others — a woman in Edinburgh with a “Fuck Imperialism. Abolish the Monarchy” sign and an academic who shouted “Who elected him?” at Charles’ proclamation in Oxford — have also been arrested. Plus photos have emerged of a woman with a “Not my king” sign outside the House of Commons being led away by cops.
We’ve noted previously that for a country that views itself as packed to the rafters with irreverent larrikins, Australia sure does have a lot of laws prohibiting the use of colourful language at figures of authority (oh hey, guess who that disproportionately affects?).
So what law was being broken in the UK?
While many nations around the world have what’s called lèse-majesté laws — French for “to do wrong to majesty” — as it turns out, the UK is not one.
A law making it illegal to call for the abolition of the monarchy in the UK is still on the books, but we’re assured it’s not enforced any more. In Scotland, a lèse-majesté law was struck off in 2010 (apparently having not attracted a conviction since 1715).
Separately, a monarch can’t have civil or criminal proceedings taken against them. (How far is Andrew down the line of succession again?)
According to police, the Scottish man, identified as Rory, was “arrested in connection with a breach of the peace”. The woman being moved away from the House of Commons was simply making way “to facilitate vehicle access and egress through the gates” and was not arrested.
Much like the fact that police in Australia have total discretion about who they charge with bad language offences — and by staggering coincidence disproportionately decide to charge young Indigenous people — it seems basic “disturbing the peace” laws might be more likely to be enforced in the next few weeks.
So much for all the rhetoric (BS is probably a better description) about “free speech”, “the right to protest” and “the rights that our armed forces fought for”, etc. The sooner this royal (lower case ‘r’ deliberate) crowd are out of our lives the better.
By the way, as far as I am concerned Charlie Boy is NOT my king and never will be. (You heard it first at Crikey!!)
Hyperbole. The fact that police sometimes overstep the mark does not mean that free speech etc is a total fiction.
In Australia, free speech is only an implied right. In other words, no legal right at all.
‘Yet’
See where an indigenous NRLW player has been suspended for an (undisclosed) tweet. Not expecting a rant about ‘cancel culture’ and ‘political correctness’ any time soon from the usual suspects on Sky after dark or in the Murdoch rags.
The madbot is being particularly precious lately. I’ll try again:
See where an indigenous NRLW player has been suspended for an (undisclosed) tweet. Not expecting a rant about ‘cancel culture’ and ‘political correctness’ any time soon from the usual suspects.
I believe the term used was ‘dumb dog’. While probably a rather stupid and incorrect pejorative, for the NRL to talk about a lifelong banning indicates that the term could readily be applied to them.
It’s a result of Lachy’s laughable lawfare – the surname is now a trigger word for its algorithm.
Thanks, Dounreay. I should have twigged to that.
Not yet king either.
How much longer can this Royal frenzy continue. I loathe the royals and all they stand for – the class system, racism and a free ride at others expense.
Actually, Alison, they don’t cost the community much at all (or even anything). This is because the sovereign grants come from revenue from the Crown Estate as a result of an agreement with government that dates from 1066. The Crown Estate is an enormous portfolio of land that includes large swathes of the West End and Regent Street in London, regional shopping centres, one of the largest land holdings in the UK (approx. 19,000 acres) and much of the country’s seabed. By the agreement mentioned above, the income from this portfolio goes to the UK Treasury and in return the Sovereign receives the equivalent of 25% of it. The hangers-on (princes/princesses/dukes/duchesses etc) are paid from that grant. Add to that the MASSIVE income from the royals’ contribution to tourism (by their very, loathsome existence), and the balance sheet looks even better!
We can, though, loathe them for their inherited entitlement and that they (as with our own politicians) will have no worries about the superannuation holding out or the power staying on.
Um, what about the way they get to peruse upcoming legislation and are able to give it the kybosh if they don’t like it? Didn’t some recent leaks show they’re in the habit of protecting their financial interests in this way?
Ah yes… another valid reason to loathe them.
So, the monarchy stole land from the people and profited from it. It sounds like what they did in Australia as well.
Of course they did. Read your British monarchy history. That’s what these royally-entitled bar stewards did as a matter of course. But after ‘parliament’ was invented, some parliaments pushed back. After a few people were executed for their impudence, the royalty listened to the growing crowds and came to see the light. Hence the Crown Estate Agreement.
In Australia, the people who stole land were mostly adventurist squatters, whose squatting later gave them title (and wealth that their families still enjoy today). SchMo knew a lot of their descendants.
Your first para is spurious nonsense – refer to my post in reply to Zeke.
As there was no formal process as to land title, all land was held to be the personal possessions of whoever happened to be the strongest of the ‘Strongmen’. That, throughout our earliest history, obtained right through the world. When 1 king became powerful enough, the lesser estates became subordinate ( in fealty ) and therefore ownership was at the discretion of the king. Hence the titles and ownership and income from those estates were subject to the dispensation of the king.
At no time did ordinary people, the peasants, serfs, or whatever historically correct terms for the lowest ranks are used, ever have ownership of lands; the best they could aspire to was the use of commons. They may have used them, but did not own them.
Those systems were mostly incrementally demolished, and rightly so from late feudal age, but residues still exist, such as the British royal family’s possession of billions of dollars worth of property in the UK and elsewhere.
The ‘Crown’ actually tried to prevent the ill-treatment and stealing of lands from the first Australians, by instructions to the first and subsequent Governors and Lt. Governors ( colonies ) that the indigenes were considered subjects of the Crown and so could not legally be dispossessed.
Rather than the Crown, it was the military, the first settlers and subsequent basically free-range invaders that dispossessed the black fellas, only later, as revenge expeditions, did the Crown get involved.
By the bye, I am and always have been a staunch republican – it helps your case to know what you’re talking about.
My spurious nonsense may have (necessarily) been somewhat brief… even generic. But I think it comprehends your points well enough.
On the matter of The Crown Estate. This essentially dates from 1066, but in 1760 King George III surrendered Crown revenue to the Treasury as part of the deal that relieved him of his personal debts, the national debt, and responsibility for the cost of the civil government. In effect, our new King is the owner/landlord, but all the rents go directly to the UK government for public expenditure. The sovereign grant that the Treasury pays to the Royal family is basically a citizen’s dividend. At the Proclamation on Saturday, Charles specifically mentioned this in declaring:
“I take this opportunity to confirm my willingness and intention to continue the tradition of surrendering the hereditary revenues, including the Crown Estate, to my government for the benefit of all, in return for the sovereign grant, which supports my official duties as head of state and head of nation”.
I was shocked to see Andrew joining the public activities and completely understand the young man’s decision to challenge him. I’m sure Andrew has every opportunity to attend private activities associated with his mother’s mourning.
I felt for a woman paying her respects outside Balmoral (I think it was). She said that when Andrew came to her section of the crowd, everyone started moving away and she was left feeling that she should stay and tolerate him despite the discomfort it made her feel.
An incredibly disrespectful way for Andrew to treat people who come to pay respect to his mother. It seems his predatory nature has not diminished after the revelations of his association with child sex trafficking, and a clear indication that the family is not fully aware of the immense responsibility that comes with its status and privilege.
Be grateful we haven’t been subjected to the ex, Fergie.
Can’t agree there – I’d rather Fergie than randyAndy for company.
The Princess Royal, in her military dress uniform, following the cortège down Edinburgh’s Royal Mile, did not seem all that keen on his bringing up the rear in a morning suit.
Like the old Duke, she is not one to suffer fools gladly, blood be damned.
Perhaps it’s not lack of awareness- just simple contempt.
They are Royal and don’t have to suffer consequences of any disgusting, or ordinary bad behaviour. It IS contempt.
Bunch of thin-skinned sycophants, those police. Just who thought that was a good look?
From what I have seen, the police removed Rory from the scene because mourners started to physically attack him.
Then shouldn’t the ‘mourners’ be the ones getting arrested for assault?
Can’t blame the mourners. Rude and disrespectful at a part of a funeral.
So stating the obvious is rude and disrespectful, but assault isn’t. Righto
The idiot asked for it. I’m sure you wouldn’t take kindly to some yobbo abusing you during a part of your Mums funeral process eh Sport?
If I were a mate of a sex trafficker and pedophile then maybe I’d deserve it, eh?
When there is an actual criminal conviction let me know. Guilt simply because you know someone and civil cases involving large sums of money don’t cut it.
Do you have to be placed under arrest to be protected from a mob of Royalists?
His behaviour was not necessarily that of an anti-royal; just of someone who couldn’t contain themselves at the sight of Andrew – for which he could hardly be blamed.