As The Guardian notes this morning:
Millions are expected to show out for protests on Saturday at more than 2,500 locations across America, from small towns to large cities, to speak against the Trump administration.
No Kings, the coalition behind a mass demonstration in June, is again calling people to the streets to send the simple message that Donald Trump is not a king, pushing back against what they see as increasing authoritarianism.
I am with them in spirit. The USA definitely does ot need a king, or Trump, whether he thinks he is one or not.
The mass protest logic is based, as The Guardian notes, on academic research:
Organizers and protesters this year have repeatedly drawn on research that showed if 3.5% of a population protests non-violently against a regime, the regime will fail. This theory has been dubbed the “3.5% rule”.
Political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan created a database of civil resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006, analyzing whether non-violent or violent movements were more likely to succeed and whether there was a tipping point in terms of size for protests to actually expel the party or person in power. The results showed non-violent campaigns were often much larger and were twice as likely to succeed than violent movements. They were more representative of the population, and, they found, active and sustained participation by 3.5% of a population meant a movement would succeed, with very few, specific exceptions.
I am reasonably persuaded by this idea. We need 3.5% to demand change here in the UK.
I am also persuaded that this is not the only reason for change to happen. As The Guardian also notes this morning:
Prince Andrew has agreed to give up his use of the Duke of York title, he said in a statement released through Buckingham Palace.
He will also give up use of his honours as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) and Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, meaning his only remaining title will be that of prince, which cannot be removed as he was born the son of a queen.
They added:
In a statement, he said: “In discussion with the king, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the royal family. I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.
“With His Majesty's agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me. As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”
Andrew's disgrace is now complete. But let's not pretend the matter is over. Of course, abuse of the sort Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (or whatever else he will call himself now) is alleged to have undertaken is personal, but it also comes from a position of privilege that he had no right to hold.
Eugenically chosen for the roles he had, based on theories of genetic inheritance of superior status promoted by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin during the Victorian era, Andrew Whatever proved that the was not suited for the tasks asked of him, and was most definitely not superior, except in his own mind, which is where the link with Trump most definitely comes in.
Trump is not a king.
Andrew X comes from a family that should not have the right to be head of state in the UK just for being.
Democracy should always rule.
The selection of the head of state should be by merit and by winning a mandate.
Hereditary entitlement to rule in Britain should end.
The guardrails protecting this country from abuse by those governing it should be reinforced by a proper constitution, as the USA clearly also now needs, because that which it has is no longer working for it..
Protest against the monarchy in the UK also needs support. I am a member of Republic. Give it a look.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] instead, or at least one related to the Quantum series. It so happens it links fairly well with another post this […]
One argument against the Monarchy is surely the effect it has on the members of the Royal Family.
Edward the 8th, George VI, Princess Margaret, Prince Andrew & Prince Harry spring to mind and thats only the ones we know about…………
Agreed
It should be clear to everyone in the UK (and almost anywhere else) that democracy rarely gives us very good government. Its utility lies rather in enabling us to get rid of the very bad (without bloodshed anyway). And there you have the problem with monarchy – the royal family is a pretty mixed bunch, but we have to put up with them however bad they turn out to be.
I’ve been thinking for a while that a written constitution would be handy. I’ll be watching out for Robert Reich’s Coffee Klatch this afternoon.
Anyone else feeling nervous for Americans today? The No Kings protests could be the beginning of the end for the Trump regime, or it could be the end of the beginning. The mask may come off (completely, it’s hanging by a thread to their nasty little rat faces) and a lot of people could get hurt.
“a lot of people could get hurt”
Yanks take getting hurt in stride as one has a chance of being shot by collateral gun fire in parking lot if a fight breaks out over a parking space a or a car getting nick by a shopping cart trolley very time one goes to a supermarket or a large DIY supply store (Home Depot, Lowe’s or Harbor Freight)
America managed to end up like us after all with a wealthy elite calling the shots and they’ve been in denial ever since. Just like the Establishment here in Blighty, that U.S. elite has always been able to keep one step ahead of the game because of the resources at their hands.
The U.S. needs publicly funded politics and right quick.
There is obviously more to come out of this saga as discussed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning. The monarchy has panicked and is gambling that a line has been drawn below this huge scandal and abortive coverup. Let’s hope that Trump is next and that the Republican lady politician cited this morning can really expose this awful mess.
Does the Monarchy really stand a chance of surviving after the death of KCIII?
William doe not seem at all interested in being King to me.
You know my views on this, Richard, so we’re on message on this. All I’ll add is it’s well worth watching this segment from Ari Melber from last evening, with some excellent comments from James Carville (of Bill Clinton – ‘It’s the economy, stupid’, fame). A classic, I must say – complete with his “Cajun” accent and expressions.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber
Will watch later
One oddity is that our recent monarchy has seen hereditary figures like Queen Elizabeth and King Charles show a commitment to trying to do good with their privileged status.
Perhaps because it is largely ceremonial, and the privilege is as much hereditary wealth, it is arguably now one of the more benign monarchies, if you focus on the immediate hereditary line rather than extended family.
In the past the extended family having titles in part to use marriage to foster ties with other countries. That time seems to be past, so while I’m not anti-monarchy, maybe it is time to reduce the focus to a small number of ‘active’ royals who are feted but also expected to play their part doing their bit for the country frequently.
You can have a Monarch as a branch of Government without having a “Royal Family”.
A Monarch is a branch of Government in a Constitutional Monarchy form of Government.
A Constitutional Monarchy form of Government does NOT need a Royal Family, It only needs a line of succession as determined by Parliament.
I’m not a royalist, Tampa, so I’d much refer if the UK got rid of its royalty (and House of Lords), but apparently repeated surveys show a majority want to hang on to them. That said, once Charles departs (in the same way as his mother, I guess), William only has to look across to the continent to see which way to take things: just do what they do in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, etc. The UK is the outlier here, and that should have ended long ago.
Andrew Windsor will still retain his inherited fortune and millionaire lifestyle, he just wont have to pretend he ‘works’ for them anymore.
Obviously we shouldn’t have a monarchy but many people who know that, still somehow think its sort of OK , sort of defines us, and ‘they are only really ceremonial anyway’.
Simon Jenkins had a good piece in the Guardian. He concluded :
“But above all, William should release his children. He should do away with the royal family brand, disband the Firm and take to his bicycle. No more Andrews.”
Royalty demeans the royals.
It infantilises the rest of us.
It endorses inequality as right ordering.
I personally think the Titled Aristocracy (example House of Lords) and concept of Royal Family does more damage than the concept of “Monarch” in a constitutional monarchy form of government..
You can have a constitutional monarchy form of government without a House of Lords and/or Royal Family.
But a President in the Irish form would be so much more useful.
@Richard
A President in the “Irish mode” would work.
The only “Monarch” advantage is that one is not running for office.
You can have a monarch or President without an inauguration, coronation, robes, hocus pocus and the burden of the Church of England but I think it would take a written UK constitution to make it work.
As a Yank, the House of Lords (inherited “unearned” and life peerages “Bought & paid for”) bothers me more than a “true” constitutional monarch. However, I will defer to other posters as my dog is not in this fight.
I wouldn’t have swapped places with any of them. They seem to have a lot going for them by accident of birth, but in reality their life choices were not their own from the moment they came into the world. They are in a position to do much good, which most actually do.
If they had been lucky at birth, they might have been the son of a billionaire, inherited a fortune, and indulged their whims at their leisure with no danger of penury, doing good or evil according to their personalities and upbringing.
And so, we see two men, one a royal who served his turn, did some good and then came off the rails. The other, a plutocrat born who was always vain and venal, now wreaks havoc in his own land and abroad. Both deserve our censure and public shame, yet only one really gets it. Funny old world, sometimes.
A President in the Irish form and a Council of Elders (though I imagine you couldn’t call it that!) Wisdom and experience without the cronyism.
To help us understand just how deeply poor Andrew is suffering, let’s have a look at the remaining threads of his life:
Retained. Prince. He remains Prince Andrew by birth as the son of Queen Elizabeth II. This cannot be removed unless Parliament intervenes.
Retained (but not used publicly). Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh. Peerages remain legally his unless removed by Act of Parliament. He has agreed to stop using them publicly.
Retained (not used). Membership in Orders (e.g., Order of the Garter, Royal Victorian Order). These honours remain unless formally revoked. Reports indicate he will no longer use them.
Retained. Retired rank of Vice-Admiral (Royal Navy). This is a substantive rank he holds on the retired list. His honorary military appointments were removed previously.
Retained. Place in the line of succession He remains in the line of succession by birthright.
Retained. Residence at Royal Lodge, Windsor. He reportedly continues to live there under existing arrangements (part of a lease/agreement, not a royal title).
Andrew’s personal net worth is estimated to be in the range £4 – 6 Million.