margaretthatchersdead
Hell Country Hell Country
Frog | They/Them | UK Politics/General Politics/Queer Stuff
220 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
bearwrite
bear write
heraldofcrow
Something Whacked This Way Comes...
karlaxstuffs-blog
karla stuffs
thejourneyofrootandshaw
In Honor of Shoot
chicgeekgirl89
Just a Geek Girl in Disguise
Text
Ah yes, famously the Bank of England is full of Trotskyists. There's actually a small Leninist insurgency within it as well.
A wake.
4K notes
·
View notes
Text
So with the news that Rishi may be getting the axe, does anyone actually remember the last time we had the Prime Minister be the same person from one general election to the next?
#uk politics#fuck the tories#rishi sunak#actually can anyone remember the last time we had a general election when it was supposed to and not called to happen?
101 notes
·
View notes
Text
The funniest way to learn news on this website is to see an older post of yours get some notes and to then find out why
Anyway, I guess I might be seeing you all pretty soon for the William version of this list. May the crabs feast well on Charlie
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
I really do loathe the usage of non-man (and the rarer non-woman) and the way they're used on non-binary people. I'm not exactly fond of the concept of people defining their attraction by what it's not either but I'm aroace and that one isn't really my place to say things.
Non-binary refers to those who do not full fit within the gender binary but can and does still include those who may identify with one of the binary genders. Bigender, demigender and genderfluid are three examples of non-binary people who may identify with one of the binary genders.
Attempting to classify sexualities as being in regards to "non-men" and "non-women" is really just erasing those people though. Lesbians can be attracted to non-binary people but justifying it by saying "Oh it's fine, because lesbian means non-men attracted to non-men :))" is awful logic. Pretty much every time I've seen someone do it, there's no further explanation on the non-binary person/people given than just that one term and it's just this weird assumption that no non-binary person is ever a man or a woman too. It's bizarrely defining someone else's gender to fit your worldview
Defining sexualities in this way also excludes a lot of non-binary people from these sexualities in terms of being the ones feel the attraction as well. There is a large history of gay and lesbian people have complicated and intricate relationships with their genders but the non-men thing takes them out of that history.
At the end of the day, humans are messy and complicated. By definition, the terms we use to describe ourselves are going to be that too and they can't all be tied up neatly in a bow. This is fine.
Also stop weirdly policing lesbians on their sexualities because this stuff wouldn't exist if people weren't doing that and constantly going "Oh but are you really a lesbian?". Someone saying that they're a lesbian isn't a beginning of a debate, it's them saying they're a lesbian.
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
Seeing people say that they don't know what to think regarding the Israel Palestine situation because there are people on both sides and what they say contradicts the other is genuinely infuriating.
Like yeah, they don't agree. That's how almost every issue works. People that support gay rights and homophobes say opposite things; it would be really weird for them to be saying the same things. But I haven't seen that one hasn't been having the weird influx of people whining about things not being simple.
You shouldn't just believe the first things you say or what seems the most convincing at a first glance. You do have to put effort in and look at what's happening and make your own conclusions. Going "Well one side says there's a genocide and the other one says there isn't so I don't know what to believe :(((((" is pathetic. You should have morals of your own and at least basic critical thinking skills.
#politics#free palestine#palestine#free gaza#gaza#like lying is a thing#please tell me you get lying is a thing#Also in case it wasn't clear#I do support palestine because genocide bad#I'm not surprised at this point that people are doing this but I am so very disappointed
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
The sheer amount of people still complaining about people going by it/its pronouns is pathetic.
Making it all about yourself and how you don't want to use them isn't support.
Also saying it's disrespectful is ridiculous. It's pretty disrespectful to not use someone's pronouns.
I think bringing up "it/its" pronouns is a good test for people who claim to be "trans allies" because it so easily weeds out the people who are only doing it superficially. I've seen so many people who will post "Punch your local TERF #transrightsarehumanrights" and then turn around and be like "If someone says they go by 'it/its' pronouns it's actually good to misgender them because they're just teenager trenders"
46K notes
·
View notes
Text
The fact that the bitching about aros has been going on for so long but people refuse to get new material. Honestly if nothing else it's just lazy and boring. Compare what people were saying a decade ago to now and it's the exact same.
"Oh but what about the aro cishet man who just uses women?" Gee, what if. At the end of the day, if you think someone feeling romantic attraction means they have a greater level of respect for people, you're really weird. Through this logic are all gay men misogynist? I mean considering how the people saying this tend to be terfs, they probably do also think that. The logic does imply that allo cishet men would be some of the greatest respecters of women and I don't think reality reflects that ngl.
"You're not queer just because you don't want to date women" Yeah I don't think you get how sexuality works bestie. "Want" isn't really how that one goes.
"You're still straight even if you don't wanna fuck" We're still on the conflating of aro and ace apparently. So many years to be educated and you've neglected to even learn the meaning of two words. Truly aro exclusionists are on another level.
"Well if they're a guy and they don't want to fuck men then they aren't lgbt" Interesting use of "lgbt" there when implying the only way any guy could be queer would be an attraction to men. I'm sure there's no other reasons whatsoever a guy could be queer.
Like it would still be bad if there was new material but at the very least I could have something for entertainment value.
#aromantic#arophobia#these are all paraphrasing comments from the bullshit poll#lgbt#queer#lgbtq#lgbtqia#lgbtqia+#also are you really going to let a genshin player of all people decide who's in the community#acephobia#briefly#aphobia#in general
75 notes
·
View notes
Text
The fact that right now in the UK the two main headlines regarding trans people are: the government releasing transphobic guidance to schools and the murderers of Brianna Ghey being convicted is beyond parody.
The government has advised schools to misgender trans kids and out them to their parents, except for 'exceptionally rare' cases where the child would be in danger while the perpetrators of a hate crime, where the victim and killers are teenagers, are being sentenced is ridiculous. The guidance will encourage transphobia in schools even more than it already is and saying that it's 'exceptionally rare' for trans kids to be in danger is blatantly false. This is all without getting into the toll this will be on mental health.
The tories have blood on their hands and they're only adding to it. Following this guidance will claim lives and they know it.
203 notes
·
View notes
Text
Okay so good that Braverman is out but why the fuck is Cameron back?
Pretty sure we'd all just assumed he'd fucked off to a pig farm and was longingly staring at pictures of Miss Piggy wondering when she'll call him back.
#uk politics#david cameron#suella braverman#fuck the tories#also while it is good that she's out she is still around and it is still a tory in that position#so not the greatest win#also miss piggy is never calling him
18 notes
·
View notes
Text
A journalist stationed at a Gaza hospital who has been able to make a call via his Turkish sim:
"We’re in Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital. We have no idea what’s happening. There’s no connection, no Wi-Fi, no reporters. We’re cut off from everything.. People can’t call ambulances or civil defense. We are being bombed in an unprecedented manner. The sky around us just lights up [with explosions], and no one knows what’s going on. You can’t reach anyone, even if they’re only 500 meters away. Ambulances and medics are begging reporters to let them know which streets are getting bombarded to go rescue the victims but the reporters themselves don’t know where anything is happening [because of the connection loss]. We are trying to report the news but we have no idea what’s happening.”
22K notes
·
View notes
Text
Don't Lose Your Vote! UK Edition
A snap general election could be called any day. This will be the first general election that requires photo ID if you vote at the polls (postal votes 📫 are unaffected by the Election Act 2022).
If you don't have an approved form of identification (list here), you can apply for a FREE voter ID photo card. Find out more below or use these 5 minutes to register and get your ID sorted instead ❎ because, and this is important to know, the government really doesn't want young people to vote.
The Explanation
Rishi Sunak, UK Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party, may call a snap election in 2023. (A snap election is a vote brought in earlier ⏱ than the one that’s scheduled 🕐) The UK’s next general election (for MPs and the PM) is meant to happen between December 2024 and January 2025.
A snap election happens in as little as 25 days 😨 between the announcement (aka the PM asking the House of Commons’ to approve the dissolution of Parliament) and the vote 🏃♀️
You must be registered to vote - currently over 8 million people are not. Unlike other a democratic countries, the UK doesn’t automatically register all eligible voters. You have to do this yourself. Here’s a quick reminder of how to register:
youtube
Over the past 15 years, it has gotten harder for British citizens to vote:
Families can no longer register to vote as a household 🏡 so young voters must register themselves (Cameron Govt)
Colleges and universities are barred from registering students 👨🎓 (Cameron Govt)
The Elections Act requires photo ID 🤳 for anyone voting in person (Johnson Govt)
Local elections (for city and town governments) in 2023 were the first votes that required VOTER ID. According to the Electoral Commission, over 14,000 people were turned away from the polls because they had not heard about the change.
The House of Lords tried to amend the Elections Act before it passed, to include more common types of ID, such as bank statements, bills, student ID, library cards and much more. This amendment was struck down in the House of Commons. A lot of the IDs included in the approved list are more likely to be owned by older voters than younger ones. For example, a 60+ Oyster Card is acceptable ID but an 18+ Oyster Card is not.
Here’s the important thing to know: voters who don’t have a driving licence or passport or other approved forms of ID, can apply for a free voter ID photo card. Watch the video below to find out how!
youtube
And finally, please, for the love of our democracy, vote.
"Democracy is not something you believe in or a place to hang your hat, but it's something you do. You participate. If you stop doing it, democracy crumbles." Abbie Hoffman
#This is very important#And always remember that postal votes are a thing in case you can't get id or don't in time
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
Not gonna lie, I'm not exactly enthused to see people trying to class transsexual as an elevated term compared to transgender (or just trans) while also saying it has to be mean a trans person who wants to medically transition/already has.
First of all, acting like on term is better than another is ridiculous in general but doing it while still insisting it has to mean medical transition is ridiculous. It's straight up just truscum logic again that there's a hierarchy to trans people and it's the ones who medically transition that are at the top of it. Even without the rigid definition, it's still not a great claim because of the connotations around that term.
Listen, you're free to go by whatever damn term you please but you don't get to claim that one is better and people absolutely have the right to be annoyed with you when you're trying to act superior to others in the community.
Access to medical transition is a privilege at the end of the day and acting like you're better than others because you have that privilege is bullshit.
#trans#transgender#transsexual#transphobia#and this is without even getting into how transitioning can be kind of weird to work out if you're nonbinary#as i said you can choose whatever term you want but if it's because you view other trans people as inferior to you then you're just a dick#also people are going to be a little on edge if you do#that's not them being weak or anything it's because an awful lot of people who go by that term do so because of messed up views#i have straight up seen people say they go by transsexual so they can be separate from nonbinary people
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
It is deeply, deeply beneficial to TERFs if the only characteristic of TERF ideology you will recognize as wrong, harmful, or problematic is "they hate trans women".
TERF ideology is an expansive network of extremely toxic ideas, and the more of them we accept and normalize, the easier it becomes for them to fly under the radar and recruit new TERFs. The closer they get to turning the tide against all trans people, trans women included.
Case in point: In 2014-2015, I fell headlong into radical feminism. I did not know it was called radical feminism at the time, but I also didn't know what was wrong with radical feminism in the first place. I didn't see a problem with it.
I was a year deep into this shit when people I had been following, listening to, and looking up to finally said they didn't think trans women were women. It was only then that I unfollowed those people, specifically; but I continued to follow other TERFs-who-didn't-say-they-were-TERFs. I continued ingesting and spreading their ideas- for years after.
If TERFs "only target trans women" and "only want trans women gone", if that's the one and only problem with their ideology and if that's the only way we'll define them, we will inevitably miss a vast majority of the quiet beliefs that support their much louder hatred of trans women.
As another example: the trans community stood relatively united when TERFs and conservatives targeted our right to use the correct restroom, citing the "dangers" of trans women sharing space with cis women. But when they began targeting Lost Little Girls and Confused Lesbians and trotting detransitioners out to raise a panic about trans men, virtually the only people speaking up about it were other transmascs. Now we see a rash of anti-trans healthcare bills being passed in the US, and they're hurting every single one of us.
When you refuse to call a TERF a TERF just because they didn't specifically say they hate trans women, when you refuse to think critically about a TERF belief just because it's not directly related to trans women, you are actively helping TERFs spread their influence and build credibility.
63K notes
·
View notes
Text
List of Sources:
A lot of this is the guardian apparently. This was supposed to be in the initial post, but in order for it to be posted in time, it had to come later. There are likely better/more cohesive sources out here, but I don’t really have time to be looking for them right now.
Royal family lobbying to hide their wealth, also ties into the monarch not being just a ceremonial role. [X]
Black spider memos [X]
Not a ceremonial role. The UK is a constitutional monarchy at the end of the day, where the monarch is straight up defined as exercising their authority in accordance with a constitution but is not alone in decision making. I’m not claiming that the monarchy has nearly as much power as they used to, just that it’s not exactly true to claim they have no power, and again, they’re incredibly rich and under our current systems, that gives them an incredible amount of power. The monarchy also have a very large amount of social and cultural influence because of that position, which makes it untrue to dismiss any arguments against the monarchy by saying it’s simply a ‘ceremonial role’. It should also be noted that most official publications have a tendency to refer to the monarchy as being ‘mostly ceremonial’ or ‘broadly ceremonial’ which feels telling.
The fact that the monarchy holds ‘royal prerogative’ means that the Prime Minister can declare war or sign treaties without a vote in Parliament and the Privy Council can enact legislation without a vote in parliament. This is more about how the monarchy undermines democracy.
The monarch generally holds a lot of theoretical power, where in practice this doesn’t happen but it’s still deeply concerning that they do actually have this power.
Anyone who accepts significant public office may do so without swearing allegiance to the monarch. [X]
Windsor Castle vs Windsor Legoland [X] [X] Legoland gets 10 times the amount of visitors.
Windsor Castle vs Louvre [X] I do appear to be wrong on this one, the figures actually seem to be more like 6 times, as this part comes from the original list close to a year ago, I do not know where that number came from. Either way, the Louvre brings in many times the amount of tourists.
Edinburgh Castle visiting figure, I got curious on this one and apparently Edinburgh actually gets a little more visitors than Windsor Castle. [X]
Andrew being defended. I mean, he’s still out there and free. This one is more about the power and influence that the royal family has in general and the repercussions of that. All of the so-called ‘punishments’ that the royal family have given out to him are pitifully small. He’s not carried out any royal duties since 2019. Charles is still set to pay for him to have some private security guards, for around £3 million. [X]
Cost [X] So the Sovereign Grant is paid to the monarch and in 21/22 was £86.3 million. There is an unknown amount paid by the government for security. The overall estimate is put to be between £300 million and £500 million.
The royal family does generate money, that is true, but it’s true that none of that money wouldn’t be generated anyway, see the figures about visitors to Windsor Castle vs other places. The £334 million figure is from Republic, an anti-monarchy group, who did their own research on this, however the actual report where this figure comes from has since been removed for reasons I am unsure of, but can be viewed using the internet archive. Regardless, it is provably untrue that the monarchy’s only costs are from the sovereign grant. [X]
Charles accessing confidential papers, the Queen was also being sent these papers [X]
Alternative medicine [X][X][X]
Charles lobbying [X]
Abdicating. I don’t know where that figure came from right now, this one shouldn’t be as difficult to find as I saw the source within the past week and not last year. In regards to national opinion, though, it has generally been going down over time and the amount of young people who still support the monarchy has decreased rapidly. [X] Just in general, people do not like Charles very much. The Queen was vastly more popular with people and William is seen more favourably than Charles.
Contract [X]
Personal wealth [X] Some sources suggest it may be more when taking into account all assets, but the main takeaway is that he is a billionaire.
Paradise Papers [X]
Coronation cost, also gives additional information that most people didn’t actually want the coronation to be funded by the government [X]
Protests banned, warning letters, jail time, police powers. One from before the coronation and one from after. [X]
Swearing allegiance [X]
Law immunity [X] This is called the Sovereign immunity. Employees of the monarchy cannot pursue anti-discrimination complaints under the equalities act.
Land ownership [X]
@howlsparkedrv @perfectlyconstructedlonghouses @littlebluewraith As I do recall you three (very fairly) asking for sources.
Reasons to end the monarchy: Charles Edition
Well it’s the coronation so you know what it’s time for.
The entire concept of a monarchy is actively undemocratic. The head of state should not be someone who is only in that position because they were born into a certain family.
Having a monarchy upholds classism as a specific family of great wealth and power are viewed as superior to others.
They stand for a history of racism and imperialism. This country has done some truly terrible things in its history and the monarchy are a symbol of that. In order to attempt to begin to undo the harm that we have done, we need to remove this symbol of oppression.
The royal family have previously lobbied the government to hide their own personal wealth. Despite this, we are obviously aware that they have a large amount of wealth.
Prince Charles has himself lobbied the government on a number of occasions. His ‘black spider memos’ show that he has repeatedly pressured ministers on a wide range of topics from the Iraq war to badger culling to alternative therapies. He has used his power to lobby the government on subjects that would affect him.
The monarch does not occupy a ceremonial role as is frequently claimed. Ministers and civil servants have to consult the monarch. Civil servants have to get the consent of the royals on pieces of legislation, which can cause delays on implementation.
Even if the monarch did occupy a purely ceremonial role, as a literal billionaire he wields a ridiculously high amount of power over people.
Windsor Castle brings in less money than Windsor Legoland does. The many castles that are owned by the royal family could be used to create spaces for the public to enjoy or to be used as a shelter for the homeless. The Louvre in Paris used to be house of the French monarchy and gets over twenty times the tourists. Edinburgh castle hasn’t had the monarchy live in it for centuries and yet still brings in tourism.
Prince Andrew is widely known to be connected to Jeffrey Epstein; yet he has not had to face any repercussions for his actions despite blatantly lying when being asked about his actions. The royal family have defended him and prevented him from facing the consequences of his actions.
They cost around £334 million per year. This money could be used to help the poor, given to the NHS, to repair and build infrastructure, to support small businesses that are struggling, pretty much anything.
The royal household publishes a much lower figure about the cost of the royal family, so they are actively trying to cover up their cost.
Charles has had access to confidential Cabinet papers, undermining our democracy.
He has publicly championed alternative medicine and has repeatedly promoted it. He sent at least seven letters to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, that then shortly relaxed the rules governing the labeling of herbal products, ones he as part of Charles’s Duchy Originals produces.
He lobbied the health secretary regarding greater provision of alternative treatments on the NHS.
In 2018, 46% of Britons wanted him to abdicate immediately after Elizabeth died. He’s barely wanted by the country even with the sheer amount of pro-monarchy propaganda going around. Charles specifically is very unpopular.
In order to speak to him, broadcasters had to sign a 15-page contract, which includes Clarence house attending the rough and fine cut edits of films and if unhappy can remove that contribution, as well as stipulating that all questions directed at him must be pre-approved and vetted by his representative.
His personal wealth is £1.8 billion. He inherited a large amount of this from Elizabeth, with it being exempt from inheritance tax. Having an immunity from this tax when others don’t is ridiculous.
The Duchy of Cornwall was named in the Paradise papers.
The coronation is going to cost £100 million during a cost of living crisis.
People have been banned from protesting Charles with official warning letters were sent to anti-monarchists.
Protestors who block roads, airports and railways could face an entire year behind bars. Locking yourself to others, objects or buildings could go to prison for six months and face an unlimited fine. Police are allowed to head off disruption by stopping and searching protestors that they suspect.
The public were encouraged to swear allegiance to the new King when he gets sworn in, this is a deeply disturbing suggestion.
He’s a billionaire who’s going to use the public’s money to celebrate himself.
The monarch has sweeping immunity from many laws
He owns business parks and small rented cottages, six of the ten top residential homes, 285,000 acres of mineral rich land. He’s ridiculously rich in a country where so many people are facing extreme poverty.
4K notes
·
View notes
Photo
The fact that the met's response doesn't even address them being held for 14 hours, one leaving in tears and the complete lack apology sure is something.
Ah yes, the horses would be scared by rape alarms…very sure its that and not that the Met Police is known to have a very disturbing history with rape…
Btw, the arrests were made during the EARLY hours, aka way before coronation as it was a night safety team handing out the rape alarms, so keep that in mind with the Met clearly going down this route in PR.
And even more btw, if those horses are sooo easily scared by loud noises like rape alarms, why are they at the coronation where there are loud noises such as crowds cheering and drums being beat directly on the horse’s side?
845 notes
·
View notes
Text
Reasons to end the monarchy: Charles Edition
Well it's the coronation so you know what it's time for.
The entire concept of a monarchy is actively undemocratic. The head of state should not be someone who is only in that position because they were born into a certain family.
Having a monarchy upholds classism as a specific family of great wealth and power are viewed as superior to others.
They stand for a history of racism and imperialism. This country has done some truly terrible things in its history and the monarchy are a symbol of that. In order to attempt to begin to undo the harm that we have done, we need to remove this symbol of oppression.
The royal family have previously lobbied the government to hide their own personal wealth. Despite this, we are obviously aware that they have a large amount of wealth.
Prince Charles has himself lobbied the government on a number of occasions. His 'black spider memos' show that he has repeatedly pressured ministers on a wide range of topics from the Iraq war to badger culling to alternative therapies. He has used his power to lobby the government on subjects that would affect him.
The monarch does not occupy a ceremonial role as is frequently claimed. Ministers and civil servants have to consult the monarch. Civil servants have to get the consent of the royals on pieces of legislation, which can cause delays on implementation.
Even if the monarch did occupy a purely ceremonial role, as a literal billionaire he wields a ridiculously high amount of power over people.
Windsor Castle brings in less money than Windsor Legoland does. The many castles that are owned by the royal family could be used to create spaces for the public to enjoy or to be used as a shelter for the homeless. The Louvre in Paris used to be house of the French monarchy and gets over twenty times the tourists. Edinburgh castle hasn't had the monarchy live in it for centuries and yet still brings in tourism.
Prince Andrew is widely known to be connected to Jeffrey Epstein; yet he has not had to face any repercussions for his actions despite blatantly lying when being asked about his actions. The royal family have defended him and prevented him from facing the consequences of his actions.
They cost around £334 million per year. This money could be used to help the poor, given to the NHS, to repair and build infrastructure, to support small businesses that are struggling, pretty much anything.
The royal household publishes a much lower figure about the cost of the royal family, so they are actively trying to cover up their cost.
Charles has had access to confidential Cabinet papers, undermining our democracy.
He has publicly championed alternative medicine and has repeatedly promoted it. He sent at least seven letters to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, that then shortly relaxed the rules governing the labeling of herbal products, ones he as part of Charles's Duchy Originals produces.
He lobbied the health secretary regarding greater provision of alternative treatments on the NHS.
In 2018, 46% of Britons wanted him to abdicate immediately after Elizabeth died. He’s barely wanted by the country even with the sheer amount of pro-monarchy propaganda going around. Charles specifically is very unpopular.
In order to speak to him, broadcasters had to sign a 15-page contract, which includes Clarence house attending the rough and fine cut edits of films and if unhappy can remove that contribution, as well as stipulating that all questions directed at him must be pre-approved and vetted by his representative.
His personal wealth is £1.8 billion. He inherited a large amount of this from Elizabeth, with it being exempt from inheritance tax. Having an immunity from this tax when others don’t is ridiculous.
The Duchy of Cornwall was named in the Paradise papers.
The coronation is going to cost £100 million during a cost of living crisis.
People have been banned from protesting Charles with official warning letters were sent to anti-monarchists.
Protestors who block roads, airports and railways could face an entire year behind bars. Locking yourself to others, objects or buildings could go to prison for six months and face an unlimited fine. Police are allowed to head off disruption by stopping and searching protestors that they suspect.
The public were encouraged to swear allegiance to the new King when he gets sworn in, this is a deeply disturbing suggestion.
He's a billionaire who's going to use the public's money to celebrate himself.
The monarch has sweeping immunity from many laws
He owns business parks and small rented cottages, six of the ten top residential homes, 285,000 acres of mineral rich land. He’s ridiculously rich in a country where so many people are facing extreme poverty.
#uk politics#british royal family#fuck the monarchy#imperialism#royals#king charles III#may he end up like the first
4K notes
·
View notes
Text
Bringing this back as it is the coronation, the sequel will be out soon
A non-exhaustive list of reasons to end the monarchy
The concept of a monarchy is actively undemocratic. The head of state should not be someone who is only in that position because they were born into the right family.
They stand for a history of racism and imperialism. This country has done some truly terrible things in its history and the monarchy are a symbol of that. In order to attempt to begin to undo the harm that we have done, we need to remove the symbol of other’s oppression.
She had previously lobbied the government to hide her own personal wealth. Her private lawyer put pressure on the government to alter proposed legislation in order to stop her personal shareholdings from being known to the public.
Prince Charles lobbied the government on many occasions. His ‘black spider memos’ show that he has repeatedly pressured ministers on a wide range of topics from the Iraq war to badger culling to alternative therapies. He has used his power to lobby the government on subjects that would affect him.
The Queen does not occupy a ceremonial role as is frequently claimed. Ministers and civil servants have to consult the queen and charles. Civil servants have to get the consent of the royals on pieces of legislation, which can cause delays on implementation.
Windsor castle brings in less money than Windsor Legoland does. The many castles that are owned by the royal family could be used to create spaces for the public to enjoy or to be used as shelter for the homeless. The Louvre in Paris used to be house of the French monarchy and gets over twenty times the tourists. Edinburgh castle hasn’t had the monarchy live in it for centuries and yet it still brings in tourism.
Prince Andrew is widely known to be connected to Jeffrey Epstein and he has not had to face any repercussions for his actions despite blatantly lying when being asked about his actions. The royal family have defended him and prevented him from facing the consequences for his actions.
When the Queen and Prince Philip met she was a thirteen year old girl and he was nineteen and instantly in love with her.
They cost around £334 million per year. This money could be used to help the poor, to give to the NHS (It’s quite a good figure to give to the NHS), to repair and build infrastructure, to support small businesses that are struggling and so much more. It should also be noted that the royal household publish a much lower figure than this, so they are trying to cover this up.
It’ll be funny
We need the horrible histories song to remain correct and the only way to do that is to have Liz be the last monarch.
We can get more bank holidays if we do it.
Parasites aren’t people.
They’re all cunts.
Something to do.
Eat the rich.
A lot of americans like them
Guillotines are cool and we need to use them more
I’m cool and sexy and always right
The jokes after Phil died were funny and I want to see more jokes like that
It’s Pride Month and I’m queer.
300 notes
·
View notes