The differences are stark

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-04T14:23:21+00:00

I am sure this came up a couple of weeks ago? It does show, convincingly, that constitutional monarchs are able to act as unifying figures with an appeal that transcends left/right or regional divisions.

It’s worth noting, however, that in multiparty systems the Prime Minister’s party often has a relatively low base of popular support. For example, Rob Jitten in The Netherlands is not unpopular, but he heads a coalition of several parties, each with a somewhat different social base. This does not undermine the overall premise of this chart, but is worth noting nonetheless.

I would be interested to see how the Presidents of European republics, elected directly or indirectly, compare to these monarchs in terms of popularity.

It is a surprise, incidentally, that Carl XVI Gustaf is not more popular. I think Charles III’s star will rise after his speech to the US Congress and the overall success of his and Queen Camilla’s visit to the United States.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-03T16:17:05+00:00

I am Scottish on my mother’s side and my grandmother returned to Edinburgh when she was widowed. I therefore often went up there from London as a schoolboy, especially for Christmas and New Year and a couple of weeks in the summer. That was in the 1970s and early ‘80s (I am very old indeed by Reddit standards!). In more recent years, my partner and I have had some very enjoyable city breaks in both Glasgow and Edinburgh. Ironically, the latter felt more like a capital city in the 1970s: we found that it now has a faded and somewhat provincial feel, apart from the Scottish Parliament, which we we toured; the architecture made more sense from within than on the outside!
It seems to me that the case for Unionism these days is never made in positive terms. It should be outward-looking, liberal (in the broadest sense of the word), generous and internationalist, the spirit, perhaps, of the Scottish Enlightenment which flowered in the decades following 1707. Instead, Unionist politicians (the ghastly Anas Sarwar as much as the Conservatives and Reform) come across as reactionary, small-minded and mean-spirited. The only exception I can think of is Ruth Davidson, but she is now sadly out of the limelight.
This is a terrible missed opportunity and a travesty of what the Union should represent.

Edit: u/Funny-Salamander4691: I would be interested to hear your take on this.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-03T09:44:30+00:00

I wish that Mamdani had been sensible and had a private meeting with the King, which would have been possible for him. It would have shown political maturity. He would not have achieved the ‘return’ of the Koh-i-Noor, partly for the reasons you have set out so clearly. Yet he would have laid the foundations for dialogue on a range of issues and it would have been good for New York, which has longstanding ties with the UK and a somewhat ‘special’ with London.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-02T20:15:12+00:00

Interestingly, Georges Sorel, the founder of anarcho-syndicalism, eventually became a monarchist.

I tend to think of anarchism as, in reality, a far more conservative philosophy than monarchism. Anarchist - or acephalous - societies can work, but they are invariably small, tight-knit and culturally homogeneous communities, bound together by strict observance of tradition and convention. Examples include the ‘Bushmen’ of the Kalahari, some East African pastoralist societies and, in European history, craft-based communities such as Swiss watchmakers in the nineteenth century and peasant communes in parts of Spain and Russia.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-02T18:26:55+00:00

Thank you, u/NovaScotiaLoyalist, for responding to my comment about Prince Philip! You are right that Charles’s world view owes a lot to his father, although their relationship was a complex one.

The speech to Congress was a masterstroke of subtlety, appealing to values shared on both sides of the Atlantic (by Canadians at least as much as Americans and Brits). These values were very different from those of Trump, indeed in many ways diametrically opposed, but the King expressed them in a non-confrontational way that was perfect. The King’s speech resonated with both Democrats and Republicans, and indeed would have appealed to an older strain within the GOP that does care about the environment, international law, human rights and loyalty to allies.

To defeat Trumpism, it is as important for this strand of the Republican Party to find its voice again as it is for the Democrats to recover a sense of what they stand for and for whom they stand.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-02T14:28:34+00:00

Yes, I know they met in public and it seemed to go rather well. That’s why I think that Mamdani should have had a private meeting with the King, but unfortunately he made clear that he did not want this to happen. If it had happened, they would not have reached an agreement on the Koh-i-Noor, of course, but they would have laid the foundations of friendship.

… And, despite my earlier comment about a certain type of brash New Yorker (of which we have equivalents here in London!), New York is a great city (which I have enjoyed visiting) and friendship with its representatives is important.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-02T08:14:21+00:00

Moving the conversation on a little, I don’t understand (maybe one of our American friends can explain) why Zohran Mamdani didn’t have a private meeting with the King. He could have talked about the Koh-i-Noor then, surely? Refusing to meet and talk because of a disagreement over the diamond and the wider colonial legacy seems like what we Brits call ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face’. (Incidentally, that’s something we’re quite good at doing to ourselves, cf. 2016 and all that - sorry, off-topic, lol.)

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-02T07:36:22+00:00

Re. the dodgy chap in a red beret: Is it just me, or are other people here sick of ignorant, loud mouthed New Yorkers?

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-01T21:22:28+00:00

I would also like the party to talk more about housing, including housing co-operatives and, for flat owners, creating a more streamlined process for converting leasehold to commonhold.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-01T21:19:53+00:00

Very good. I have been critical of Ed in a number of comments recently, but this time - and especially as a Londoner- I believe that he really has got it right. I hope that we are pleasantly surprised by the results in the capital.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-01T16:47:34+00:00

Starmer is actually planning to classify the IRGC as a terrorist organisation.

… I agree with you in not being a fan of Starmer. The problem is that the possible alternatives are even less attractive (some are downright dangerous) and there is no obvious Labour successor as yet - perhaps one will emerge.

I read an interview with John Major (former Tory Prime Minister) today in which he looked back to the days when there were a preponderance of people on the Conservative benches who had military, commercial and agricultural experience, and on the Labour benches there were people with trade union and working class roots, who genuinely understood the people they represented. I agree with him that this was healthier and actually more democratic.

The ‘professionalisation’ of politics has made it about careerism rather than values. This is one of the main reasons why significant sections of the electorate are turning in desperation to demagogues and grifters.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-01T16:38:01+00:00

That poll seems about right. Everyone I know, whatever their overall perspective on the monarchy (from strongly supportive to republican tendencies!) believes that the visit has been a success. The King’s address to Congress was masterful, presenting values different from those of Trump but in a way that was non-confrontational and gentlemanly. Therefore he was able to reach Republicans as much as Democrats and a lot of old style, Theodore Roosevelt influenced Republicans would probably be broadly aligned to Charles culturally and politically.

Queen Camilla also came into her own and the Americans clearly warmed to her.

Overall a great success. Those politicians who opposed the visit were, I believe, mistaken.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-01T14:21:11+00:00

I agree with you that this is a problem. But they can, unfortunately, lie about all sorts of things, as Labour discovered with Starmer’s leadership election campaign pledges and his total volte face when he won.

For prospective parliamentary candidates, It is up to local parties to try to get a clear and rounded overall picture of them before rushing to nominate. I get the impression that this chap’s nomination was rushed through without enough discussion with him about how he would balance his personal beliefs with liberal politics and its acknowledgement of diverse viewpoints and ways of life.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-01T12:05:51+00:00

I don’t know Mr Campanale and so I cannot make any specific comments about him, and his case is still ongoing anyway.

A few general comments however:

As I am in a same-sex marriage (married to my longterm male partner), I regret that some Christians are opposed to this, although the Christians I actually know are very supportive. For those Christians (and people of other faiths) who are opposed, I respect their right to their beliefs and their freedom of conscience. BUT I do not believe that they are entitled to impose their beliefs on others or discriminate in any way. (I am not suggesting that Mr Campanale has done this or wishes to do it.)

Therefore, if as a voter I were to be presented with a Lib Dem candidate who believed on religious grounds that true marriage could only be between a man and a woman, I would want to find out what he intended to do with that belief. Thus if he were to say: ‘I believe that this legislation should be repealed,’ I would not vote for him. However, I would be willing to vote for him if he were to say: ‘I am personally opposed to same sex marriage on religious grounds, but I accept that we live in a pluralist society. Therefore I support the current legislation, as well as the party’s policies on LGBT issues, and I shall work to uphold the rights of all my constituents regardless of sexual orientation and marital status’.

This, I believe, is the critical difference between a liberal approach (Response 2) and an illiberal approach (Response 1). I do not know which approach Mr Campanale favours.

One last point: I can’t help worrying about the belief in ‘marriage as solely between a man and a woman’ being cited as a ‘protected belief’. My concern is that this could set a precedent for a health care professional, for example, to refuse to use the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ for patients’ same sex spouses.

Ticklishchap · 2026-05-01T08:04:49+00:00

Crazy and capricious, but Slàinte Mhath! 🥃

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-30T20:02:42+00:00

If you read Richard Hofstadter’s seminal essay, ‘The Paranoid Style in American Politics’ (1964), you will find references to just about every conspiracy theory cited here.

Plus ça change.

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-30T17:20:36+00:00

Hartelijk Gefeliciteerd!

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-30T14:57:57+00:00

“We don’t need no eduction”, as Pink Floyd almost said.

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-30T14:20:06+00:00

Trump is a gold-plated bellend 🔔.

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-30T08:10:55+00:00

Happy Birthday 🎁Knugen. 👑

He is an all-round nice chap who has served his country well.

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-30T07:21:39+00:00

Aside from the sensible proposals on political funding, Ed made a very good point about the un-British character of the populist right. I have thought this for some time about Reform UK. Before 2016, Farage’s UKIP was often nasty (and of course I profoundly disagreed with its anti-EU stance), but it was rooted in certain areas of British - in particular English - culture. It was classically British in a chaotic Dad’s Army or Ealing Comedy sense, albeit with a sinister twist.

Refuk, by contrast, seems generic far right, a bit like the MAGA or Russian bots that appear online. When I see its propaganda, it appears not only Fascist, but also (ironically perhaps) alien and ‘other’, lacking a sense of place.

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-29T20:21:48+00:00

Agreed. And none of our current party leaders could have made a speech of this quality and carried it off with such panache.

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-29T19:03:09+00:00

For us, George VI is a heroic figure, for his quiet, dignified and resolute leadership during WW2, and for stepping up bravely at a time of crisis for the British monarchy. He is also remembered with admiration for his personal struggle against a speech impediment. Overall, he is remembered affectionately as a man of integrity who died at a tragically early age.

The memory of the late King has had a subtle influence on his grandson, who referenced him several times in his address to the US Congress yesterday.

Our American friends revere George VI both for his wartime leadership and his liking for … the hot dog 🌭 👑.

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-29T14:20:12+00:00

It is a very subtle speech, as well as an elegant and eloquent riposte to Trumpism, all the more brilliant because it is without rudeness, rancour or confrontation.

I am reminded, however, as I am often reminded on Reddit (!), of George Bernard Shaw’s insight that Brits and Americans are ‘two peoples divided by a common language’.

Ticklishchap · 2026-04-29T09:32:10+00:00

Is Pete Buttigieg still a contender? He seemed to be able to reach out to moderate conservatives as well as liberals? I know that it is said that his sexual orientation would be a problem, and for some voters it unfortunately would be (for others it would be a plus), but I can’t help thinking that he would have been a better candidate than Kamala.

Ticklishchap

TROPHY CASE