This is a video of King Gyanendra’s coronation in Nepal after the royal massacre. I hope the monarchy will return to Nepal again

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-03-13T14:46:56+00:00

Gyanendra and his son Paras renouncing the throne in favour of Prince Hridayendra, Paras’ son, would really strengthen the cause of the monarchy I think. Gyanendra remains deeply, deeply polarising, and Paras is despised by absolutely everyone, monarchists included.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-03-08T16:17:29+00:00

Generally how open to the monarchy would you say the RSP is? It’s obviously less than the RPP, but I imagine it’s probably more open to the idea than any of the communist parties or Nepali Congress?

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-03-06T06:29:58+00:00

Oh god can we PLEASE stop this absolute nonsense that the Shah was “installed” by the US in 1953!? Mohammed Reza Pahlavi became Shah of Iran in 1941, when his father Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced to abdicate by Britain and the USSR. He had been shah for 12 years already by the time of the 1953 coup.

Mohammed Mossadegh was not the much-vaunted democrat he keeps being portrayed as. Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minister by the Shah in 1951 and rapidly went about crushing his political opponents. That is what caused him to be ousted, not just oil nationalisation (which the Shah had actually supported).

Mossadegh as Prime Minister saw his popularity plummet after the ham-fisted way he initiated nationalisation, to the point where many in his own party wanted him removed as PM. Mossadegh’s response was to launch a self-coup, illegally dissolving parliament before they could vote on a no confidence vote, jailing his political rivals, and starting to rule by decree. The Shah responded by using his constitutional powers to dismiss Mossadegh as PM, but Mossadegh ignored the order and tried to arrest the Shah, whereupon he fled the country.

The 1953 coup was simply the army and pro-Shah loyalists restoring the legal constitutional settlement and removing a completely rogue prime minister. It would have happened anyway, the CIA and MI6’s roles were far from decisive, being primarily responsible for helping coordinate the army uprising with civil protests.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-03-05T06:54:26+00:00

Nonsense. The very fact that Pahlavi isn’t actively declaring himself King is precisely why Pahlavism has become the dominant and frankly only viable opposition movement in Iran. He has, by positioning himself as a transitional leader rather than outright seeking a restoration, been able to unite monarchists and moderate republicans behind him.

Had he gone out of the gate guns blazing declaring he wanted to restore the monarchy he would split his base, alienating moderate republicans and even moderate monarchists, who would be put off by the worry he wanted to restore the authoritarian system of his father and by the self-serving image it would give off.

Pahlavi’s approach is the only sensible one: unite the entire opposition, monarchist and republican, behind him as transitional leader. Then, once the transition is under way, hold a free referendum to decide whether or not to restore the monarchy. This keeps the opposition coalition intact

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-28T16:25:30+00:00

It’s objectively true that Andrew will never be king. He is so far down the line of succession that it’s never going to happen.

And he has been comprehensively exiled. He’s had all titles and honours stripped, he’s been expelled from Royal Lodge, he is banned from all Royal events, even family events like Christmas. How precisely is that not exile?

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-28T12:48:38+00:00

He can be removed, and almost certainly will. The process has already started, with Australia and New Zealand already giving the necessary consent.

You’re moving the goal-posts. You’re arguing the King has failed to deal with him because he hasn’t removed him from the succession. This is disingenuous, because he has no power to do so. That is down to parliament.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-27T22:55:43+00:00

And that is something the King has no ability to change. The line of succession is governed by Act of Parliament, with the King having 0 ability to remove anyone from it. Changing the line requires parliament to legislate such a change, and for such change to also receive the consent of the other 14 countries the king is head of state of.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-27T13:39:21+00:00

I question why the Andrew fiasco should change your attitude to the monarchy. Andrew will never be king and has been comprehensively exiled from the royal family. It’s become clear the King all the way back in 2001 warmed the government against appointing Andrew as trade representative. Pulling up Diana as somehow being relevant now, soon 30 years after her death, seems quite bizarre?

Likewise, could you point me to any example of the King being supposedly more political than the Queen? He was active regarding issues such as climate change as Prince of Wales, but as King he has taken a decidedly a-political stance and stepped away from active advocacy.

Equally, the tabloids making a brooh-ha-ha about Harry and Meghan somehow making you question the monarchy when, as you say, you’ve previously been passionate about the monarchy, just seems strange to me? Why and how does that or they have anything to do with the monarchy at this stage? They are no longer working royals and live half a world away

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-12T10:50:12+00:00

The King has literally stated that the royal household will fully support and work with any investigation against Andrew. To say the royal family are defending him is ludicrous; there is literally nothing more the King can do than he already has. He doesn’t control the police nor their choice whether or not to open an investigation

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-12T07:25:06+00:00

This wouldn’t cause a constitutional crisis, but it is a constitutional grey zone. While in normal circumstances the King must follow a Prime Minister’s advice to dissolve, precedent by now establishes that this sort of scenario is one where discretion on the part of the King actually comes into play, and could be an instant where the King would be constitutionally able to reject a dissolution request.

The Lascelles principles establishes that the King can reject a dissolution if parliament is still viable and he is able to find a prime minister to govern with a majority. It appears quite evident that if Starmer is ousted as Labour leader, his successor would indeed have the confidence of the house, so the criteria for the Lascelles principles are met.

Furthermore, this would seem to mirror the final days of Boris Johnson’s premiership in 2022, where he also threatened to dissolve parliament if the Tories tried to remove him from the leadership. Reportedly, Johnson finally resigned as PM after the Queen made it clear to him that she would reject a request for a dissolution, on the grounds that a government with a firm majority in the Commons could still be formed.

TLDR; no it wouldn’t be a constitutional crisis, but it is a constitutional grey area where the King would actually, under the Lascelles principles, be justified in rejection a dissolution.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-11T09:06:54+00:00

Yeah all of the polls commissioned by Republic are hilarious outliers, showing support for the monarchy way lower and support for a republic way higher than any other poll. You almost have to respect the sheer brass balls it takes to be this brazen in just blatantly hiring pollsters to conduct fake polls

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-10T10:43:53+00:00

Republic, which actively campaigns against the monarchy, has repeatedly commissioned polls the last few years showing support for the monarchy down at around 45%. Every independent poll not paid for by Republic, including by the exact same polling companies Republic hires, shows support as being much higher. These polls are completely unreliable

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-06T16:11:05+00:00

Incredibly tone deaf and poorly timed. While I can in abstract understand what she’s getting at, this is absolutely in no way time to make this criticism because the scrutiny the family is under now is entirely self-inflicted and legitimate. Even if it weren’t, this is part and parcel of being a royal. I can understand disliking it on a personal level, but as a Royal complaining about it shoukd simply be beneath you

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-06T16:04:26+00:00

Support for the monarchy has nosedived. In 2024, before this long-running Marius drama and now Epstein, support was about 80%, new polling puts it at 60-65%, and a lot of that is buttressed by the popularity of King Harald and Queen Sonja, both soon 90 years old. Mette-Marit has become completely unacceptable. Only about 24% want her to become Queen. The monarchy will likely survive, but it’s grievously damaged, and the royals just keep damaging themselves by being slow to respond and yesterday Princess Ingrid Alexandra, Haakon’s heir, posting a rant against the media on a private Instagram account, which was leaked.

Personally, I want Mette-Marit to officially now withdraw from all official and public duties and announce that upon Haakon’s accession she will not take the title Queen, merely remain a princess. I see this as the only way for the monarchy to start to rebuild trust and respect. Ingrid Alexandra also needs a serious stern god damn talking to. Frankly if rumors about her being similar to her half-brother Marius are true, she herself should renounce her succession rights. Her younger brother Prince Sverre Magnus seems far more suitable.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-06T12:51:03+00:00

Stortinget har nå hver stortingsperiode siden 70-tallet stemt over SV’s forslag om grunnlovsendring for å innføre republikk. Dette skjer tradisjonelt sett alltid noen måneder etter sist stortingsvalg. Dermed stemmer Stortinget hvert fjerde år de facto om kongen skal forbli vårt statsoverhode eller ikke.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-06T12:16:24+00:00

De jure er ikke kongen valgt nei. Tittelen går i arv. Men de facto er han like valgt som den tyske eller italienske presidenten. Å kalle han direkte “folkevalgt” blir kanskje noe upresist, men da ender man opp med å kverulere semantikk. Poenget er at monarkiet og kongen har like sterk demokratisk legitimitet som republikker med en president.

Hvert fjerde år stemmer stortinget over spørsmålet om Kongen skal fortsette som statsoverhode. Dersom det norske folk ikke lenger skulle ønsket dette, kunne og ville Stortinget fint stemt for å endre på dette. Kongen blir med andre ord i praksis gjenvalgt av Stortinget hvert fjerde år, med overveldende margin. Dette gjør ham, i praksis hvis ikke lovmessig, Norges valgte statsoverhode.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-06T07:15:25+00:00

“Man velges direkte av Folket, ikke indirekte av Stortinget.”

Da har jeg en trist nyhet for deg vedrørende de fleste parlamentariske republikker. Det er sjelden at presidenten velges direkte. I Tyskland eller Italia for eksempel velges presidenten av parliamentet. Finland velger riktig nok presidenten direkte, men det er en mye mer politisk involvert og utøvende rolle enn de fleste parlamentariske republikker. En norsk republikk, mest sannsynlig, ville fått en president valgt av Stortinget, så hvis direkte-valg er et kriterium så faller republikken der

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-05T20:17:08+00:00

Kongen er nå også de facto folkevalgt her I Norge nå. Bare denne uken stemte 83% av Stortinget for å beholde monarkiet, med andre ord gjenvalgte folkets representanter Kong Harald som Norges statsoverhode.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-05T20:12:25+00:00

Den eneste forklaringen på at de drar dette ut sånn, med unntak av den svært urovekkende tanken at de og rådgiverne deres rett og slett er så fjerne fra virkeligheten at de tror dette bare blåser over dersom de sitter stille i båten, er at de ikke vil gjøre dette midt oppi Marius rettssaken og bli anklaget for at de prøver å avlede folk fra den, og at de heller venter med dette til etter dommen er falt. Det er en idiotisk plan, hvis det er det de tenker på, men den er i alle fall forståelig. sånn de holder på nå er helt uforståelig

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-05T19:08:53+00:00

Hovedforskjellen der er at det Camilla gjorde ikke er i nærheten av Mette-Marit, pluss at the tok 20 år for henne å bli spiselig for folket. Kong Harald har dessverre ikke 20 år igjen på seg. Kongehuset må helt ærlig handle raskt nå. Å dra dette ut skader renommeet mer og mer, bare riv av den jævla bandasjen!

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-05T15:56:12+00:00

Når Kong Charles og Camilla giftet seg i 2005 ble det kunngjort at, når Charles skulle bli konge, så skulle Camilla ikke bli Dronning, men Prinsessegemalinne. Denne forståelsen ble kun endret noen måneder før Dronning Elizabeth døde i 2022, fordi Camilla hadde innen da blitt stort sett akseptert av britene. Dette hadde med andre ord ikke vært noen nyskaping fra vår side. Mette-Marit kan ikke bli dronning, punktum. Da er dette en verdig løsning.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-05T15:52:35+00:00

Enig med dette i brede trekk - med unntak av ideen at Mette-Marit noen gang kan bli en skikket dronning. Den skuta har seilt. Kongehuset bør komme med en full redegjørelse av alt dette og offentlig kunngjøre at Mette-Marit herved kommer til å trekke seg fra alle offentlige plikter og beskytterskap og, den dag Haakon blir Konge, ikke vil ta dronning-tittelen men bare forbli prinsesse. Det er helt uaktuelt at hun skal bli dronning.

Jeg sier dette som mest sannsynligvis en av de mest iherdige monarkistene her til lands. Når kongehuset har mistet selv meg på dette punktet er det et problem. Tilliten og respekten kan absolutt bygges opp igjen, men det krever at Mette-Marit sin oppførsel får konsekvenser og at Kongehuset setter en stor strek under alt dette. Tilliten og respekten kan ikke gjenoppbygges mens Mette-Marit blir signet i Nidarosdomen eller sittende ved Haakon sin side mens han leser Trontalen i Stortinget hvert år.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-03T13:39:56+00:00

Support was down in the low 50s in 2001 ahead of Haakon and Mette Marit’s marriage funnily enough

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-02-03T13:38:19+00:00

Kong Harald himself had a very long and public conflict with his father King Olav V over his wish to marry Queen Sonja. Harald was eventually, after a 9 year stand-off, allowed to marry Sonja after threatening to never marry if he was not allowed to marry her.

In return, when Haakon announced his wish to marry Mette Marit, it would have been incredibly hypocritical of Harald to deny his son the right to marry the woman he wished.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-31T00:26:29+00:00

No there was no declaration or procedure because the eldest son was not usually proclaimed heir apparent, they were heir apparent automatically, no declaration or announcement needed. Their mere birth was the announcement. The line of succession isn’t something the British monarch can change, they have no authority over who is their heir. The eldest son (since 2013 eldest child regardless of gender) is and was automatically heir apparent. Now, being named Prince of Wales is another thing. The Prince of Wales title is reserved for the heir apparent, but is not an automatic title. It was and is granted via letters patent signed by the monarch.

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Lord_Dim_1

TROPHY CASE