In less than 24 hours, King Charles III will officially take over as the British king. On May 6&nbsp;(Saturday), the United Kingdom will crown the King. Even as dozens of royal fans have started camping out in Central London ahead of King Charles III's coronation, not everyone is excited about the upcoming event. Multiple polls conducted recently have found that the excitement levels are subpar at best.

For some Britons, Saturday's event is a "once in a lifetime" event, for others it is a welcome occasion for the day off from work it comes with. However, for many, the huge event and the royal family are akin to a vampire sucking the blood of its victim.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/news-king-charles-coronation-jamaica-belize-eye-ditching-britains-monarchy-589211">King Charles' coronation: Jamaica, Belize eye ditching Britain's monarchy</a>

Talking to Reuters, Philip Nash, a street sweeper in Whitechapel, a more run-down area of east London, said, "They (the royals) just take everything from me. They never do a day's work."

"I'd like to see one of them come out here, come sweep this street. Have you known any of them to do a day's work? They are like vampires, sucking my blood," he added.&nbsp;

His sentiments are shared by many Britons who believe that a spectacular ceremony for the royals seemed inappropriate when many are dealing with high inflation that has topped 10 per cent and has sent the cost of energy and food soaring.

Watch |&nbsp;King Charles III Coronation: London to witness coronation ceremony after 70 years

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/king-charles-iii-coronation-london-to-witness-coronation-ceremony-after-70-years-589209/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

A YouGov poll published on May 4&nbsp;found that only about one-third or 35 per cent of those asked about the coronation cared about it. A whopping 62 per cent were&nbsp;divided between caring 'not at all' and 'not very much'.

Another YouGov poll conducted last month found that around 48 per cent of those surveyed were not likely to participate in the coronation or even watch it on TV.

Yet another poll found that King Charles III's approval ratings have taken a dip. The poll by Ipsos released in April found that the British King's approval rating fell from 61 per cent in September 2022, to 49 per cent in April 2023.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/king-charles-defender-of-faith-to-include-peers-from-jew-hindu-muslim-sikh-faiths-in-his-coronation-585053">King Charles 'defender of faith' to include peers from Jew, Hindu, Muslim &amp; Sikh faiths in his coronation</a>

Compared to him, Kate, the Princess of Wales — who came out on top, her husband and heir to the throne, Prince William, "any of the king's grandchildren", and Charles's sister Princess Anne emerged as the public's favourite royals.

A Mirror UK poll found that the support for monarchy as an institution has also declined from 62 per cent to 58 per cent.&nbsp;

Another survey from the National Centre for Social Research found that while 55 per cent of the British public consider the monarchy to be important, those who say that its retention is “very important” stood at just 29 per cent, the lowest proportion on record.

The origins of the coronation on Sunday date back around 1,000 years and it is slated to be the biggest ceremonial event since the one staged for King Charles' mother Queen Elizabeth in 1953. The event as per Reuters, will include a display of pageantry and a huge military procession.

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In less than 24 hours, King Charles III will officially take over as the British king. On May 6 (Saturday), the United Kingdom will crown the King. Even as dozens of royal fans have started camping out in Central London ahead of King Charles III's coronation, not everyone is excited about the upcoming event.

In less than 24 hours, King Charles III will officially take over as the British king. On May 6 (Saturday), the United Kingdom will crown the King. Even as dozens of royal fans have started camping out in Central London ahead of King Charles III's coronation, not everyone is excited about the upcoming event. Multiple polls conducted recently have found that the excitement levels are subpar at best. For some Britons, Saturday's event is a "once in a lifetime" event, for others it is a welcome occasion for the day off from work it comes with. However, for many, the huge event and the royal family are akin to a vampire sucking the blood of its victim. Also read | King Charles' coronation: Jamaica, Belize eye ditching Britain's monarchy Talking to Reuters, Philip Nash, a street sweeper in Whitechapel, a more run-down area of east London, said, "They (the royals) just take everything from me. They never do a day's work." "I'd like to see one of them come out here, come sweep this street. Have you known any of them to do a day's work? They are like vampires, sucking my blood," he added. His sentiments are shared by many Britons who believe that a spectacular ceremony for the royals seemed inappropriate when many are dealing with high inflation that has topped 10 per cent and has sent the cost of energy and food soaring. Watch | King Charles III Coronation: London to witness coronation ceremony after 70 years A YouGov poll published on May 4 found that only about one-third or 35 per cent of those asked about the coronation cared about it. A whopping 62 per cent were divided between caring 'not at all' and 'not very much'. Another YouGov poll conducted last month found that around 48 per cent of those surveyed were not likely to participate in the coronation or even watch it on TV. Yet another poll found that King Charles III's approval ratings have taken a dip. The poll by Ipsos released in April found that the British King's approval rating fell from 61 per cent in September 2022, to 49 per cent in April 2023. Also read | King Charles 'defender of faith' to include peers from Jew, Hindu, Muslim & Sikh faiths in his coronation Compared to him, Kate, the Princess of Wales — who came out on top, her husband and heir to the throne, Prince William, "any of the king's grandchildren", and Charles's sister Princess Anne emerged as the public's favourite royals. A Mirror UK poll found that the support for monarchy as an institution has also declined from 62 per cent to 58 per cent. Another survey from the National Centre for Social Research found that while 55 per cent of the British public consider the monarchy to be important, those who say that its retention is “very important” stood at just 29 per cent, the lowest proportion on record. The origins of the coronation on Sunday date back around 1,000 years and it is slated to be the biggest ceremonial event since the one staged for King Charles' mother Queen Elizabeth in 1953. The event as per Reuters, will include a display of pageantry and a huge military procession. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

‘Vampires, sucking my blood’: Support for King Charles III and monarchy plummets. Here’s what polls show

For many, particularly the English conservatives and those in the erstwhile British colonies nursing a hangover, the British monarchy is a source of pride, and its opulence awes rather than repels. For others of more liberal disposition and a leaning more towards the left, it is a dinosaur, an institution that has no place in the modern world prevalent with concepts like democracy and equality. While opinions as to the nature of monarchy as it stands may differ, there is no denying the ample evidence of its dark past, its role in slavery and its treatment of indigenous populations around the world.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/king-charles-iii-inheritance-and-investment-how-rich-is-uks-new-monarch-587841/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

As King Charles III prepares for his impending coronation, the question as to whether there is a need for monarchy, even the constitutional kind, in this day and age is on many minds. King Charles III or the current British monarch remains the head of state in New Zealand, and even in that country, the press carries a lot of gossip and stories about the British royals.

Those opposed to the idea of monarchy and not wanting to do anything at all with the royals, a Māori artist from New Zealand's has a solution.&nbsp;

As per the Guardian, the artist, called Hāmiora Bailey, has created a web browser plugin that replaces all news about the royals and coronation with news about indigenous communities.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/news-indigenous-leaders-demand-king-charles-apologise-for-colonialism-and-centuries-of-racism-588770">King Charles should apologise for British colonialism and racism, Indigenous leaders demand</a>

"People are sick of it – they don’t care about how much a diamond costs and who’s wearing what dress. Across the globe, Indigenous folk are tired of [this] rhetoric around frivolity and class," Bailey said.&nbsp;

The plugin is free to download. As per the official description in Chrome's webstore, it "replaces royal gossip with indigenous news. Irritating royal gossip is smeared all over the internet. Thanks to the coronation, this has reached a whole new level of unbearable. For indigenous people, royal news is more than just annoying. That’s why Tangata Whenua have created Pīkari Mai, a plugin designed to shut up the headline-hungry royal family. Pīkari Mai rids the internet of royal articles by replacing them with the latest Māori news drawn from a range of local media publishers. Honouring Kaituhi Māori (indigenous writers) by prioritising news stories written by, for and about indigenous people."

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

For many, particularly the English conservatives and those in the erstwhile British colonies nursing a hangover, the British monarchy is a source of pride, and its opulence awes rather than repels.

For many, particularly the English conservatives and those in the erstwhile British colonies nursing a hangover, the British monarchy is a source of pride, and its opulence awes rather than repels. For others of more liberal disposition and a leaning more towards the left, it is a dinosaur, an institution that has no place in the modern world prevalent with concepts like democracy and equality. While opinions as to the nature of monarchy as it stands may differ, there is no denying the ample evidence of its dark past, its role in slavery and its treatment of indigenous populations around the world. As King Charles III prepares for his impending coronation, the question as to whether there is a need for monarchy, even the constitutional kind, in this day and age is on many minds. King Charles III or the current British monarch remains the head of state in New Zealand, and even in that country, the press carries a lot of gossip and stories about the British royals. Those opposed to the idea of monarchy and not wanting to do anything at all with the royals, a Māori artist from New Zealand's has a solution. As per the Guardian, the artist, called Hāmiora Bailey, has created a web browser plugin that replaces all news about the royals and coronation with news about indigenous communities. Also Read: King Charles should apologise for British colonialism and racism, Indigenous leaders demand "People are sick of it – they don’t care about how much a diamond costs and who’s wearing what dress. Across the globe, Indigenous folk are tired of [this] rhetoric around frivolity and class," Bailey said. The plugin is free to download. As per the official description in Chrome's webstore, it "replaces royal gossip with indigenous news. Irritating royal gossip is smeared all over the internet. Thanks to the coronation, this has reached a whole new level of unbearable. For indigenous people, royal news is more than just annoying. That’s why Tangata Whenua have created Pīkari Mai, a plugin designed to shut up the headline-hungry royal family. Pīkari Mai rids the internet of royal articles by replacing them with the latest Māori news drawn from a range of local media publishers. Honouring Kaituhi Māori (indigenous writers) by prioritising news stories written by, for and about indigenous people." WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Tired of royal family, coronation gossip? Maori artist's plugin replaces it with indigenous news

Only three in 10 Britons think the monarchy is “very important”, the lowest proportion on record, a poll shows as the king’s coronation approaches. A survey by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) shows public support for the monarchy has fallen to a historic low. A total of 45% of respondents said either it should be abolished, was not at all important or not very important.

Nearly four in ten young people support abolishing the monarchy, poll finds

New research shared with The Guardian indicates that ancestors of King Charles III bought and exploited enslaved individuals on tobacco plantations in Virginia. The documents establish a direct link between the Windsor family tree and the trafficking of enslaved Africans. A researcher named Desirée Baptiste discovered the documents while investigating links between the Church of England and enslavers in Virginia for a play she was writing. The revelation follows the Guardian’s publication of a document earlier this month that linked the slave trader Edward Colston to the British monarchy. The Royal African Company (RAC) granted almost 180,000 enslaved individuals, and senior RAC officials, describing themselves as “your loving friends”, instructed the captain of a ship to deliver “negroes” to Edward Porteus, a tobacco plantation owner in Virginia, and two other men.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-plus-the-many-shades-of-king-charles-iii-517173/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The instruction adds, "You are with your first opportunity of wind and weather that God shall send after receipt hereof to sett sail out of the River of Thames on the Shipp of Speedwell and make the best of your way to James Island on the River of Gambia … our said Agent to put aboard the Shipp Two Hundred Negroes and as many more as he shall get ready and the ship can conveniently carry … and then proceed … to Potomac River in Maryland, and deliver them to Mr Edward Porteus, Mr Christopher Robinson and Mr Richard Gardiner.”

Virginia is a significant state in the history of US slavery due to an infamous landing of enslaved African people at Jamestown in 1619. Laws in the state were developed to maintain slavery and suppress uprisings. An uprising by enslaved people in 1663 in Gloucester County, where Porteus was based, was mercilessly put down. These revelations come after the Guardian’s publication of a document earlier this month that connected the slave trader Edward Colston to the British monarchy.

Earlier, in response to the revelations regarding monarchy's ties to slavery, King Charles had shown willingness support research into the topic. As per The Guardian, a spokesperson for Buckingham Palace said, "“This is an issue that His Majesty takes profoundly seriously. As His Majesty told the Commonwealth heads of government reception in Rwanda last year: ‘I cannot describe the depths of my personal sorrow at the suffering of so many, as I continue to deepen my own understanding of slavery’s enduring impact.’"

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

New research shared with The Guardian indicates that ancestors of King Charles III bought and exploited enslaved individuals on tobacco plantations in Virginia. The documents establish a direct link between the Windsor family tree and the trafficking of enslaved Africans.

New research shared with The Guardian indicates that ancestors of King Charles III bought and exploited enslaved individuals on tobacco plantations in Virginia. The documents establish a direct link between the Windsor family tree and the trafficking of enslaved Africans. A researcher named Desirée Baptiste discovered the documents while investigating links between the Church of England and enslavers in Virginia for a play she was writing. The revelation follows the Guardian’s publication of a document earlier this month that linked the slave trader Edward Colston to the British monarchy. The Royal African Company (RAC) granted almost 180,000 enslaved individuals, and senior RAC officials, describing themselves as “your loving friends”, instructed the captain of a ship to deliver “negroes” to Edward Porteus, a tobacco plantation owner in Virginia, and two other men. The instruction adds, "You are with your first opportunity of wind and weather that God shall send after receipt hereof to sett sail out of the River of Thames on the Shipp of Speedwell and make the best of your way to James Island on the River of Gambia … our said Agent to put aboard the Shipp Two Hundred Negroes and as many more as he shall get ready and the ship can conveniently carry … and then proceed … to Potomac River in Maryland, and deliver them to Mr Edward Porteus, Mr Christopher Robinson and Mr Richard Gardiner.” Virginia is a significant state in the history of US slavery due to an infamous landing of enslaved African people at Jamestown in 1619. Laws in the state were developed to maintain slavery and suppress uprisings. An uprising by enslaved people in 1663 in Gloucester County, where Porteus was based, was mercilessly put down. These revelations come after the Guardian’s publication of a document earlier this month that connected the slave trader Edward Colston to the British monarchy. Earlier, in response to the revelations regarding monarchy's ties to slavery, King Charles had shown willingness support research into the topic. As per The Guardian, a spokesperson for Buckingham Palace said, "“This is an issue that His Majesty takes profoundly seriously. As His Majesty told the Commonwealth heads of government reception in Rwanda last year: ‘I cannot describe the depths of my personal sorrow at the suffering of so many, as I continue to deepen my own understanding of slavery’s enduring impact.’" WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Ancestors of King Charles III owned slave plantations: Report

A court in Thailand has sentenced a 27-year-old Thai activist, Mongkhon Thirakot, to 28 years in prison for insulting the monarchy in an online post. Two young women were also charged with the same law, continued their hunger strike after being hospitalised.

Thai activist Mongkhon Thirakot sentenced to 28 years in prison for online posts about monarchy

Two French journalists were put on trial on Monday&nbsp;in France for allegedly attempting to extort money from the king of Morocco in exchange for concealing supposedly damaging revelations about him.&nbsp;In order to stop the release of a book on the Moroccan royal family, Eric Laurent, 75, and Catherine Graciet, 48, allegedly demanded $2 million&nbsp;in 2015.

Both authors, who could be sentenced to five years in prison and fined 75,000 euros if proven guilty, have denied any wrongdoing and claim that a lawyer for the Moroccan royal family was the one who initially gave them the money.

In court on Monday, Laurent acknowledged that accepting to "let myself be caught up in this affair" was an "ethical error" and a "disaster."

Co-author Graciet said that the Moroccan envoy "seduced me with his financial offer, I took the plunge and I regret it".

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-who-is-alireza-akbari-the-british-iranian-executed-by-iran-for-spying-552893">Explained: Who is Alireza Akbari the British-Iranian dual national executed by Iran for ‘spying’?</a>

In 2012, the authors had already released "The Predator King," a book about King Mohammed VI that was strongly criticised and later outlawed in Morocco.

In August 2015, Laurent visited a lawyer for the royal at the bar of a Parisian hotel and informed him that the second volume was scheduled to include potentially unpleasant disclosures for the monarchy.

Morocco claims the journalist offered to put an end to the book's initial 2016 release date in return for three million euros. After talks, he allegedly eventually lowered that sum to $2 million.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

Two French journalists were put on trial on Monday in France for allegedly attempting to extort money from the king of Morocco in exchange for concealing supposedly damaging revelations about him.

Two French journalists were put on trial on Monday in France for allegedly attempting to extort money from the king of Morocco in exchange for concealing supposedly damaging revelations about him. In order to stop the release of a book on the Moroccan royal family, Eric Laurent, 75, and Catherine Graciet, 48, allegedly demanded $2 million in 2015. Both authors, who could be sentenced to five years in prison and fined 75,000 euros if proven guilty, have denied any wrongdoing and claim that a lawyer for the Moroccan royal family was the one who initially gave them the money. In court on Monday, Laurent acknowledged that accepting to "let myself be caught up in this affair" was an "ethical error" and a "disaster." Co-author Graciet said that the Moroccan envoy "seduced me with his financial offer, I took the plunge and I regret it". Also read | Explained: Who is Alireza Akbari the British-Iranian dual national executed by Iran for ‘spying’? In 2012, the authors had already released "The Predator King," a book about King Mohammed VI that was strongly criticised and later outlawed in Morocco. In August 2015, Laurent visited a lawyer for the royal at the bar of a Parisian hotel and informed him that the second volume was scheduled to include potentially unpleasant disclosures for the monarchy. Morocco claims the journalist offered to put an end to the book's initial 2016 release date in return for three million euros. After talks, he allegedly eventually lowered that sum to $2 million. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

French journalists go on trial for blackmailing the king of Morocco; could face five years in jail

The Queen has been laid to rest and the people have gone back to being blindly led once again by an institution that can only be described as decadent, lavish, greedy and above the law in&nbsp;the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Queen is dead! Long live the King! For a moment it felt like I was transported back in time to medieval Britain, where a clear, privileged, and defined hierarchy ruled these islands. Nothing much has really changed since those glory days of Great Britannia! The general public is still in awe of this racist and colonial institution, oblivious to its past history of murder, looting, and genocide in all its colonies. This institution is alone responsible for the murder and killing of over 100 million innocent civilians in their former colonies including India and the indigenous populations of America, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. This ‘achievement ‘is conveniently excluded from their history books taught at schools and other educational institutions. That’s why it comes as no surprise when well-meaning, “educated” Brits are shocked at any view or opinion that says otherwise. The queen is looked upon as God, to be fair she is the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Pope, being self-appointed the Head of the Church of England. The trappings of the Monarchy are embedded in every aspect of British society and culture and by royal decree, laws are made and changed while Prime Ministers are appointed and sacked. All in what the British believe is a functioning democracy where one family holds sway over all.

The much loved “Great Britain” name tag will go soon, along with the monarchy and the establishment who have ruled and maximised their wealth for centuries at the expense of the poor and working classes on this island and around the world during colonisation. Even during the Empire days citizens on these islands were living in squalor and abject poverty.&nbsp;Many people want to go back to the glory days of this country, where rivers were flowing with milk and honey and the “we are the good guys” image which is so conditioned and brainwashed into the minds of the British psyche from early childhood. Accurate history is not taught in this country but a very sanitised, pleasant version of it, mainly focusing on the grandeur of the monarchy for diversions and World War II.

This nation removed the kings and queens of the lands it conquered through deceit in the name of bringing democracy to the world but is still hanging on to its outdated traditions! A beacon of democracy that conveniently does not have a written constitution. Such hypocrisy! But why are we still so gullible and can’t see the obvious truth of where the power lies in this nation? Many people I personally know, support this outdated practice and institution and the cost to us the taxpayers. These very same individuals slam people on benefits, migrants, and food-banks, but are happy to give millions away to the queen and the extended royal family all in the name of tradition or a tourist attraction! This always proved my point that education does not necessarily mean you are aware or informed but conditioned to believe in an obvious lie. People want to go back to the glory days of the empire without fully understanding the true meaning of this statement. This country is responsible for all the major flashpoints around the world today. That’s the legacy of the empire and the monarchy, having committed mass genocide, looting of resources, and cultural decimation from which these countries are yet to recover.

Politicians who get elected see themselves as servants to the queen, not the electorate who voted for them in the first place. They take an oath to protect the queen (now king! And their heirs and successors!) Unbelievable! They then go about maintaining the status quo at the expense of people dying because of benefit cuts, food banks or parents having to starve in order to feed their children. 

It’s time for action and it already looks like the new King will not have an easy ride like his mother the “Beloved Queen”. Here is hoping that real change finally comes to the land that decimated countries around the world in what is known as its glory days of the empire where the sun did not set; but now has to, in order to move forward as a truly democratic nation.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)&nbsp;

The Queen has been laid to rest and the people have gone back to being blindly led once again by an institution that can only be described as decadent, lavish, greedy and above the law in the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

The Queen has been laid to rest and the people have gone back to being blindly led once again by an institution that can only be described as decadent, lavish, greedy and above the law in the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Queen is dead! Long live the King! For a moment it felt like I was transported back in time to medieval Britain, where a clear, privileged, and defined hierarchy ruled these islands. Nothing much has really changed since those glory days of Great Britannia! The general public is still in awe of this racist and colonial institution, oblivious to its past history of murder, looting, and genocide in all its colonies. This institution is alone responsible for the murder and killing of over 100 million innocent civilians in their former colonies including India and the indigenous populations of America, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. This ‘achievement ‘is conveniently excluded from their history books taught at schools and other educational institutions. That’s why it comes as no surprise when well-meaning, “educated” Brits are shocked at any view or opinion that says otherwise. The queen is looked upon as God, to be fair she is the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Pope, being self-appointed the Head of the Church of England. The trappings of the Monarchy are embedded in every aspect of British society and culture and by royal decree, laws are made and changed while Prime Ministers are appointed and sacked. All in what the British believe is a functioning democracy where one family holds sway over all. The much loved “Great Britain” name tag will go soon, along with the monarchy and the establishment who have ruled and maximised their wealth for centuries at the expense of the poor and working classes on this island and around the world during colonisation. Even during the Empire days citizens on these islands were living in squalor and abject poverty. Many people want to go back to the glory days of this country, where rivers were flowing with milk and honey and the “we are the good guys” image which is so conditioned and brainwashed into the minds of the British psyche from early childhood. Accurate history is not taught in this country but a very sanitised, pleasant version of it, mainly focusing on the grandeur of the monarchy for diversions and World War II. This nation removed the kings and queens of the lands it conquered through deceit in the name of bringing democracy to the world but is still hanging on to its outdated traditions! A beacon of democracy that conveniently does not have a written constitution. Such hypocrisy! But why are we still so gullible and can’t see the obvious truth of where the power lies in this nation? Many people I personally know, support this outdated practice and institution and the cost to us the taxpayers. These very same individuals slam people on benefits, migrants, and food-banks, but are happy to give millions away to the queen and the extended royal family all in the name of tradition or a tourist attraction! This always proved my point that education does not necessarily mean you are aware or informed but conditioned to believe in an obvious lie. People want to go back to the glory days of the empire without fully understanding the true meaning of this statement. This country is responsible for all the major flashpoints around the world today. That’s the legacy of the empire and the monarchy, having committed mass genocide, looting of resources, and cultural decimation from which these countries are yet to recover. Politicians who get elected see themselves as servants to the queen, not the electorate who voted for them in the first place. They take an oath to protect the queen (now king! And their heirs and successors!) Unbelievable! They then go about maintaining the status quo at the expense of people dying because of benefit cuts, food banks or parents having to starve in order to feed their children. It’s time for action and it already looks like the new King will not have an easy ride like his mother the “Beloved Queen”. Here is hoping that real change finally comes to the land that decimated countries around the world in what is known as its glory days of the empire where the sun did not set; but now has to, in order to move forward as a truly democratic nation. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Why the monarchy has no place in 21st century Britain

In his first Remembrance Sunday ceremony as king, Charles III laid a wreath in memory of the country's and the Commonwealth's war dead, while the UK Prime Minister&nbsp;Rishi Sunak praised Ukraine's defenders. In the past, the 73-year-old king filled in for his unwell mother Queen Elizabeth II, who passed away in September at the age of 96.

From the foreign ministry's balcony, which overlooked the Cenotaph in the heart of London, she had been seeing the yearly service ever since 2017.

The late Queen Elizabeth II was compelled to skip the event last year due to a back ailment, which came only a few weeks after an unexpected overnight hospital admission. Hence, Charles had put a wreath on her behalf.&nbsp;

In a ceremonial field marshal uniform, he lay his first wreath at the war monument as the current king and commander-in-chief of the British military.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/former-pm-liz-trusss-mini-budget-cost-the-uk-exchequer-35-billion-report-533680">Former PM Liz Truss's mini-budget cost the UK exchequer $35 billion: Report</a>

After laying the ring of red plastic poppies—national Britain's memorial—Charles remained still.

WATCH |&nbsp;US, Allies push IAEA board over Iran; West wants Iran to explain Uranium traces

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-allies-push-iaea-board-over-iran-west-wants-iran-to-explain-uranium-traces-533544/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

A ribbon in the king's favourite horseracing colours of crimson, purple, and gold was tied around the wreath, which was set atop black foliage.

The Big Ben rang out 11 times, and two minutes of quiet were held thereafter to commemorate the restoration of the Great Clock in the neighbouring Houses of Parliament.

The quiet was broken by cannon fire, and the Last Post was sounded in front of everyone by buglers.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

In his first Remembrance Sunday ceremony as king, Charles III laid a wreath in memory of the country's and the Commonwealth's war dead, while the UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak praised Ukraine's defenders.

In his first Remembrance Sunday ceremony as king, Charles III laid a wreath in memory of the country's and the Commonwealth's war dead, while the UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak praised Ukraine's defenders. In the past, the 73-year-old king filled in for his unwell mother Queen Elizabeth II, who passed away in September at the age of 96. From the foreign ministry's balcony, which overlooked the Cenotaph in the heart of London, she had been seeing the yearly service ever since 2017. The late Queen Elizabeth II was compelled to skip the event last year due to a back ailment, which came only a few weeks after an unexpected overnight hospital admission. Hence, Charles had put a wreath on her behalf. In a ceremonial field marshal uniform, he lay his first wreath at the war monument as the current king and commander-in-chief of the British military. Also read | Former PM Liz Truss's mini-budget cost the UK exchequer $35 billion: Report After laying the ring of red plastic poppies—national Britain's memorial—Charles remained still. WATCH | US, Allies push IAEA board over Iran; West wants Iran to explain Uranium traces A ribbon in the king's favourite horseracing colours of crimson, purple, and gold was tied around the wreath, which was set atop black foliage. The Big Ben rang out 11 times, and two minutes of quiet were held thereafter to commemorate the restoration of the Great Clock in the neighbouring Houses of Parliament. The quiet was broken by cannon fire, and the Last Post was sounded in front of everyone by buglers. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Britain's King Charles III leads first Remembrance Sunday as monarch

The Queen has been laid to rest and the people(sheep) have gone back to being blindly led once again by an institution that can only be described as decadent, lavish, greedy and above the law in this the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Queen is dead! Long live the King! For a moment it felt like I was transported back in time to medieval Britain, where a clear, privileged and defined hierarchy ruled these islands. Nothing much has really changed since those glory days of Great Britannia! The general public is still in awe of this racist and colonial institution, oblivious to its past history of murder, looting and genocide in all its colonies. This institution is alone responsible for the murder and killing of over 100 million innocent civilians in their former colonies including India and the indigenous populations of America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This ‘achievement ‘is conveniently excluded from their history books taught at schools and other educational institutions. That’s why it comes as no surprise when well-meaning, “educated” Brits are shocked at any view or opinion that says otherwise. The queen is looked upon as God, to be fair she is the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Pope, being self-appointed the Head of the Church of England. The trappings of the Monarchy are embedded in every aspect of British society and culture and by royal decree, laws are made and changed while Prime Ministers are appointed and sacked. All in what the British believe is a functioning democracy where one family holds sway over all.&nbsp;

The much loved “Great Britain” name tag will go soon, along with the Monarchy and the establishment who have ruled and maximised their wealth for centuries at the expense of the poor and working classes on this island and around the world during colonisation. Even during the Empire days citizens on these islands were living in squalor and abject poverty.&nbsp;Many people want to go back to the glory days of this country, where rivers were flowing with milk and honey and the “we are the good guys” image which is so conditioned and brainwashed into the minds of the British psyche from early childhood. Accurate history is not taught in this country but a very sanitised, pleasant version of it, mainly focusing on the grandeur of the monarchy for diversions and World War II.&nbsp;

This nation removed the kings and queens of the lands it conquered through deceit in the name of bringing democracy to the world but is still hanging on to its outdated traditions! A beacon of democracy which conveniently does not have a written constitution. Such hypocrisy! But why are we still so gullible and can’t see the obvious truth of where the power lies in this nation? Many people I personally know, support this outdated practice and institution and the cost to us the taxpayers. These very same individuals slam people on benefits, migrants and food banks, but are happy to give millions away to the queen and the extended royal family all in the name of tradition or a tourist attraction! This always proved my point that education does not necessarily mean you are aware or informed but conditioned to believe in an obvious lie. People want to go back to the glory days of the empire without fully understanding the true meaning of this statement. This country is responsible for all the major flashpoints around the world today. That’s the legacy of the empire and the monarchy, having committed mass genocide, looting of resources and cultural decimation from which these countries are yet to recover.

Politicians who get elected see themselves as servants to the queen, not the electorate who voted for them in the first place. They take an oath to protect the queen (now king! And their heirs and successors!) Unbelievable! They then go about maintaining the status quo at the expense of people dying because of benefit cuts, food banks or parents having to starve in order to feed their children. 

It’s time for action and it already looks like the new King will not have an easy ride like his mother the “Beloved Queen”. Here is hoping that real change finally comes to the land that decimated countries around the world in what is known as its glory days of the empire where the sun did not set; but now has too, in order to move forward as a truly democratic nation.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Queen has been laid to rest and the people(sheep) have gone back to being blindly led once again by an institution that can only be described as decadent, lavish, greedy and above the law in this the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Queen has been laid to rest and the people(sheep) have gone back to being blindly led once again by an institution that can only be described as decadent, lavish, greedy and above the law in this the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Queen is dead! Long live the King! For a moment it felt like I was transported back in time to medieval Britain, where a clear, privileged and defined hierarchy ruled these islands. Nothing much has really changed since those glory days of Great Britannia! The general public is still in awe of this racist and colonial institution, oblivious to its past history of murder, looting and genocide in all its colonies. This institution is alone responsible for the murder and killing of over 100 million innocent civilians in their former colonies including India and the indigenous populations of America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This ‘achievement ‘is conveniently excluded from their history books taught at schools and other educational institutions. That’s why it comes as no surprise when well-meaning, “educated” Brits are shocked at any view or opinion that says otherwise. The queen is looked upon as God, to be fair she is the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Pope, being self-appointed the Head of the Church of England. The trappings of the Monarchy are embedded in every aspect of British society and culture and by royal decree, laws are made and changed while Prime Ministers are appointed and sacked. All in what the British believe is a functioning democracy where one family holds sway over all. The much loved “Great Britain” name tag will go soon, along with the Monarchy and the establishment who have ruled and maximised their wealth for centuries at the expense of the poor and working classes on this island and around the world during colonisation. Even during the Empire days citizens on these islands were living in squalor and abject poverty. Many people want to go back to the glory days of this country, where rivers were flowing with milk and honey and the “we are the good guys” image which is so conditioned and brainwashed into the minds of the British psyche from early childhood. Accurate history is not taught in this country but a very sanitised, pleasant version of it, mainly focusing on the grandeur of the monarchy for diversions and World War II. This nation removed the kings and queens of the lands it conquered through deceit in the name of bringing democracy to the world but is still hanging on to its outdated traditions! A beacon of democracy which conveniently does not have a written constitution. Such hypocrisy! But why are we still so gullible and can’t see the obvious truth of where the power lies in this nation? Many people I personally know, support this outdated practice and institution and the cost to us the taxpayers. These very same individuals slam people on benefits, migrants and food banks, but are happy to give millions away to the queen and the extended royal family all in the name of tradition or a tourist attraction! This always proved my point that education does not necessarily mean you are aware or informed but conditioned to believe in an obvious lie. People want to go back to the glory days of the empire without fully understanding the true meaning of this statement. This country is responsible for all the major flashpoints around the world today. That’s the legacy of the empire and the monarchy, having committed mass genocide, looting of resources and cultural decimation from which these countries are yet to recover. Politicians who get elected see themselves as servants to the queen, not the electorate who voted for them in the first place. They take an oath to protect the queen (now king! And their heirs and successors!) Unbelievable! They then go about maintaining the status quo at the expense of people dying because of benefit cuts, food banks or parents having to starve in order to feed their children. It’s time for action and it already looks like the new King will not have an easy ride like his mother the “Beloved Queen”. Here is hoping that real change finally comes to the land that decimated countries around the world in what is known as its glory days of the empire where the sun did not set; but now has too, in order to move forward as a truly democratic nation. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Why the English monarchy has no place in 21st century Britain

Opposition lawmakers in Quebec have declared they will not swear an oath to King Charles III, the king as Canada's Head of State. Canada's Constitution requires lawmakers to take an oath in the name of the head of the state.

Canada: 11 Quebec opposition lawmakers shun oath, opens up debate about continuing monarchy

Days&nbsp;after stripping her grandchildren of royal titles, Denmark's&nbsp;Queen Margrethe on Tuesday apologised for her decision but stopped short of reversing it.&nbsp;

"I have made my decision as Queen, mother and grandmother, but, as a mother and grandmother, I have underestimated the extent to which much my younger son and his family feel affected. That makes a big impression, and for that I am sorry," read the statement released on the royal family's website.&nbsp;

"No one should be in doubt that my children, daughters-in-law and grandchildren are my great joy and pride. I now hope that we as a family can find the peace to find our way through this situation," it read further.&nbsp;

Explaining her decision, Queen&nbsp;Margrethe said the decision was taken to "ensure that the monarchy always shapes itself in keeping with the times".&nbsp;

Queen Margrethe, Europe’s longest-serving monarch at present last week announced that&nbsp;Prince Joachim's four children: Nikolai, Felix, Henrik and Athena&nbsp;will not have their official royal titles.&nbsp;

“As of January 1, 2023, the descendants of His Royal Highness Prince Joachim will only be able to use their titles of Count and Countess of Monpezat, their previous titles of Prince and Princess of Denmark ceasing to exist,” a statement from the royal palace stated

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/denmarks-monarch-queen-margrethe-strips-four-grandchildren-of-royal-titles-520872">Read more:&nbsp;Denmark’s monarch Queen Margrethe strips four grandchildren of royal titles</a>

Queen Margrethe slimming down the monarchy is similar to steps taken by newly crowned King Charles III. Last month, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle were demoted to the bottom of the royal family's website alongside disgraced Prince Andrew.&nbsp;

The move was is in line with King Charles III's view of having a slimmed and toned-down monarchy as the public cannot continue to fund an ever-expanding&nbsp;royal family.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/prince-harry-meghan-markle-fall-in-uk-royal-family-pecking-order-demoted-to-bottom-of-website-520426">Read more:&nbsp;Prince Harry, Meghan Markle fall in UK royal family pecking order; demoted to bottom of website</a>

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Days after stripping her grandchildren of royal titles, Denmark's Queen Margrethe on Tuesday apologised for her decision but stopped short of reversing it. "I have made my decision as Queen, mother and grandmother, but, as a mother and grandmother, I have underestimated the extent to which much my younger son and his family feel affected.

Days after stripping her grandchildren of royal titles, Denmark's Queen Margrethe on Tuesday apologised for her decision but stopped short of reversing it. "I have made my decision as Queen, mother and grandmother, but, as a mother and grandmother, I have underestimated the extent to which much my younger son and his family feel affected. That makes a big impression, and for that I am sorry," read the statement released on the royal family's website. "No one should be in doubt that my children, daughters-in-law and grandchildren are my great joy and pride. I now hope that we as a family can find the peace to find our way through this situation," it read further. Explaining her decision, Queen Margrethe said the decision was taken to "ensure that the monarchy always shapes itself in keeping with the times". Queen Margrethe, Europe’s longest-serving monarch at present last week announced that Prince Joachim's four children: Nikolai, Felix, Henrik and Athena will not have their official royal titles. “As of January 1, 2023, the descendants of His Royal Highness Prince Joachim will only be able to use their titles of Count and Countess of Monpezat, their previous titles of Prince and Princess of Denmark ceasing to exist,” a statement from the royal palace stated Read more: Denmark’s monarch Queen Margrethe strips four grandchildren of royal titles Queen Margrethe slimming down the monarchy is similar to steps taken by newly crowned King Charles III. Last month, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle were demoted to the bottom of the royal family's website alongside disgraced Prince Andrew. The move was is in line with King Charles III's view of having a slimmed and toned-down monarchy as the public cannot continue to fund an ever-expanding royal family. Read more: Prince Harry, Meghan Markle fall in UK royal family pecking order; demoted to bottom of website (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Denmark's Queen Margrethe apologises for stripping her grandchildren of royal titles

In Australia, over a thousand people staged a protest against the National Day of Mourning for Queen Elizabeth II. People in Sydney and Melbourne gathered and called for more indigenous rights.

Australia: Thousands protest against day of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II

Scores of people, mainly from the indigenous group, descended onto the streets in major parts of Australia for the “abolish monarchy” protest on the national day of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday.

The demonstration was called by the Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance (WAR) and Fighting In Solidarity Towards Treaties to decry “past atrocities and the ongoing impact of British colonisation in Australia”.

The protests are being held in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra on the day of a national public holiday.

“This is a stance against the continued crimes committed against marginalised First Nations, black, brown and Asian communities. We do not support benefactors or ‘Stolenwealth’ (a portmanteau of stole and commonwealth) and demand justice, truth and accountability for all. Justice for all,” WAR wrote on Facebook.

“This is a demonstration against racist colonial imperialism.”

The protesters demanded the return of land "to the rightful sovereign owners", an end to indigenous deaths in custody, and truth, accountability and justice.

"While they mourn the Queen, we mourn everything her regime stole from us: our children, our land, our loved one's lives, our sacred sites, our histories," WAR said.

In Sydney, people assembled near a statue of Queen Victoria before marching through the streets, reports AFP.

"I think the monarchy needs to be aware that there's unfinished business happening here in Australia," Gwenda Stanley, a 49-year-old activist of the indigenous Gomeroi people, was quoted as saying.

"The monarch is nothing to mourn about, it is something if anything for our people to rejoice," she added.

Meanwhile, Australia's Governor-General David Hurley, who represents the monarchy, said he acknowledges the concerns of the island continent's first inhabitants.

"Considering the unifying role her majesty played, I acknowledge that her passing has prompted different reactions for some in our community," Hurley said in Canberra.

"I'm conscious and respect that the response of many First Nations Australians is shaped by our colonial history and broader reconciliation journey. That is a journey we as a nation must complete."

Earlier, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had promised a referendum in the first three-year of his term to give indigenous peoples the right to be consulted by lawmakers on matters that affect them.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Scores of people, mainly from the indigenous group, descended onto the streets in major parts of Australia for the “abolish monarchy” protest on the national day of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday.

Scores of people, mainly from the indigenous group, descended onto the streets in major parts of Australia for the “abolish monarchy” protest on the national day of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday. The demonstration was called by the Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance (WAR) and Fighting In Solidarity Towards Treaties to decry “past atrocities and the ongoing impact of British colonisation in Australia”. The protests are being held in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra on the day of a national public holiday. “This is a stance against the continued crimes committed against marginalised First Nations, black, brown and Asian communities. We do not support benefactors or ‘Stolenwealth’ (a portmanteau of stole and commonwealth) and demand justice, truth and accountability for all. Justice for all,” WAR wrote on Facebook. “This is a demonstration against racist colonial imperialism.” The protesters demanded the return of land "to the rightful sovereign owners", an end to indigenous deaths in custody, and truth, accountability and justice. "While they mourn the Queen, we mourn everything her regime stole from us: our children, our land, our loved one's lives, our sacred sites, our histories," WAR said. In Sydney, people assembled near a statue of Queen Victoria before marching through the streets, reports AFP. "I think the monarchy needs to be aware that there's unfinished business happening here in Australia," Gwenda Stanley, a 49-year-old activist of the indigenous Gomeroi people, was quoted as saying. "The monarch is nothing to mourn about, it is something if anything for our people to rejoice," she added. Meanwhile, Australia's Governor-General David Hurley, who represents the monarchy, said he acknowledges the concerns of the island continent's first inhabitants. "Considering the unifying role her majesty played, I acknowledge that her passing has prompted different reactions for some in our community," Hurley said in Canberra. "I'm conscious and respect that the response of many First Nations Australians is shaped by our colonial history and broader reconciliation journey. That is a journey we as a nation must complete." Earlier, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had promised a referendum in the first three-year of his term to give indigenous peoples the right to be consulted by lawmakers on matters that affect them. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

'Abolish monarchy': Australia’s indigenous groups protest on day of mourning for Queen

Crowds booed two anti-monarchy protesters opposite British parliament in central London on Monday (September 12). The anti-monarchy protesters protested outside the parliament when King Charles was addressing lawmakers inside. This was King Charles' first address to parliament after his accession to British throne.

The two protesters held signs saying "End feudalism", "Abolish the monarchy" and "Not my king".

Watch | Queen Elizabeth II death: King Charles leads procession in Edinburgh

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/queen-elizabeth-ii-death-king-charles-leads-procession-in-edinburgh-515529/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

One of the protesters, who did not give his name, called the principle of hereditary power "absolutely abhorrent" in the modern age.&nbsp;

"You can't have any philosophical or moral justification for one family having political power like that just by virtue of their birth," he told AFP.&nbsp;

"That's the fundamental issue."&nbsp;

The protesters also expressed their displeasure about amount of taxpayers' money the monarchy receives each year.

The annual allowance from the government -- the Sovereign Grant -- amounted to almost £86 million ($101 million) in the financial year 2020-21.&nbsp;

It is calculated at 15 percent of the profits of the Crown Estate, a huge portfolio of land, property and other assets that belongs to the ruling monarch but is independently managed.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/king-charles-iii-makes-first-address-to-british-parliament-515469">King Charles III makes first address to British parliament</a>

The second protester also highlighted an ancient convention known as "king's consent" whereby the monarch is consulted whenever proposed legislation could affect the crown's interests.&nbsp;

She called it "his hidden power to change laws".&nbsp;

"He's a king without consent, and that's not right," she added.&nbsp;

The woman was later seen on video posted by London's Evening Standard newspaper being led away by police holding her signs nearer to parliament.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Crowds booed two anti-monarchy protesters opposite British parliament in central London on Monday (September 12). The anti-monarchy protesters protested outside the parliament when King Charles was addressing lawmakers inside.

Crowds booed two anti-monarchy protesters opposite British parliament in central London on Monday (September 12). The anti-monarchy protesters protested outside the parliament when King Charles was addressing lawmakers inside. This was King Charles' first address to parliament after his accession to British throne. The two protesters held signs saying "End feudalism", "Abolish the monarchy" and "Not my king". Watch | Queen Elizabeth II death: King Charles leads procession in Edinburgh × One of the protesters, who did not give his name, called the principle of hereditary power "absolutely abhorrent" in the modern age. "You can't have any philosophical or moral justification for one family having political power like that just by virtue of their birth," he told AFP. "That's the fundamental issue." The protesters also expressed their displeasure about amount of taxpayers' money the monarchy receives each year. The annual allowance from the government -- the Sovereign Grant -- amounted to almost £86 million ($101 million) in the financial year 2020-21. It is calculated at 15 percent of the profits of the Crown Estate, a huge portfolio of land, property and other assets that belongs to the ruling monarch but is independently managed. Also Read | King Charles III makes first address to British parliament The second protester also highlighted an ancient convention known as "king's consent" whereby the monarch is consulted whenever proposed legislation could affect the crown's interests. She called it "his hidden power to change laws". "He's a king without consent, and that's not right," she added. The woman was later seen on video posted by London's Evening Standard newspaper being led away by police holding her signs nearer to parliament. (With inputs from agencies) You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Crowds boo anti-monarchy protesters outside UK parliament

Following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda has said he will hold a referendum to decide the republic status of the country within three years.

PM Gaston Browne made the statement after he signed a document that confirmed Charles III as the new king.

Stating that the Caribbean country will retain a British monarch, for now, PM Browne added,&nbsp;“This is not an act of hostility or any difference between Antigua and Barbuda and the monarchy, but it is the final step to complete that circle of independence, to ensure that we are truly a sovereign nation."

When asked the time frame to complete the referendum process, Browne said,&nbsp;“I’d say probably within the next three years.”

It is pertinent to note that despite being a sovereign nation with a democratic setup, Antigua and Barbuda's head of state remains the Queen or King of the UK. Succinctly put, the former British colony is not a republic but a constitutional monarchy.

Apart from&nbsp;Antigua and Barbuda, countries like Australia, and Canada are also still constitutional monarchies. Earlier in the day, both countries proclaimed Charles III as their King as well.&nbsp;

Read more:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/queen-elizabeth-live-updates-concerns-mount-over-the-monarchs-health-514190">&nbsp;Queen Elizabeth II death LIVE updates: Australia &amp; Canada proclaim Charles III as king in a ceremony</a>

However, holding a referendum is not a guarantee that the country will automatically become a republic; the example of Australia is a case in point.

As reported by WION, there have been a few attempts to make Australia a republic but so far, none of them have been successful. A referendum in 1999 was narrowly defeated as 55 per cent of Australians voted to maintain the status quo.

WATCH:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-an-aboriginal-senator-calls-queen-elizabeth-ii-a-colonising-queen-502515"> An Aboriginal senator calls Queen Elizabeth II a ‘colonising’ Queen</a>

Current Labour Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has also promised to do the same but the challenge is much harder than it looks. However, in the wake of the Queen's death, Albanese has made it clear that&nbsp;he will not hold a republic referendum during his first term out of 'deep respect' for Queen.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

&nbsp;

Following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda has said he will hold a referendum to decide the republic status of the country within three years.

Following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda has said he will hold a referendum to decide the republic status of the country within three years. PM Gaston Browne made the statement after he signed a document that confirmed Charles III as the new king. Stating that the Caribbean country will retain a British monarch, for now, PM Browne added, “This is not an act of hostility or any difference between Antigua and Barbuda and the monarchy, but it is the final step to complete that circle of independence, to ensure that we are truly a sovereign nation." When asked the time frame to complete the referendum process, Browne said, “I’d say probably within the next three years.” It is pertinent to note that despite being a sovereign nation with a democratic setup, Antigua and Barbuda's head of state remains the Queen or King of the UK. Succinctly put, the former British colony is not a republic but a constitutional monarchy. Apart from Antigua and Barbuda, countries like Australia, and Canada are also still constitutional monarchies. Earlier in the day, both countries proclaimed Charles III as their King as well. Read more: Queen Elizabeth II death LIVE updates: Australia & Canada proclaim Charles III as king in a ceremony However, holding a referendum is not a guarantee that the country will automatically become a republic; the example of Australia is a case in point. As reported by WION, there have been a few attempts to make Australia a republic but so far, none of them have been successful. A referendum in 1999 was narrowly defeated as 55 per cent of Australians voted to maintain the status quo. WATCH: An Aboriginal senator calls Queen Elizabeth II a ‘colonising’ Queen Current Labour Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has also promised to do the same but the challenge is much harder than it looks. However, in the wake of the Queen's death, Albanese has made it clear that he will not hold a republic referendum during his first term out of 'deep respect' for Queen. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Antigua and Barbuda to hold referendum to decide republic status in the wake of Queen's death

In pics | Thousands of men and women in South Africa celebrate the coronation of new Zulu king

Dissent and demonstration continue to grow against the monarchy in Thailand. Thousands of protestors hit the streets of Bangkok calling for reforms to the monarchy and the military govt.

Thailand: Protestors demand reforms to monarchy

The Taliban said that the Islamic Emirate would adopt the constitution of the former King Mohammad Zahir Shah's time for a temporary period, and eliminate any elements they disagree with. WION's Anas Mallick tells you more.

Taliban to adopt monarchy constitution ‘temporarily’, with caveats

Thousands of protesters gathered in the Thai capital Bangkok on Wednesday to demand reform of the monarchy and the release of jailed leaders, days after one of the most violent demonstrations since they began last year.&nbsp;

Thailand's youth protest movement emerged last year and has posed the biggest challenge to the government of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, a former army chief, who seized power in 2014 from an elected government.&nbsp;

More than 30 civilians and police were injured in a clash at a protest near the palace on Saturday, after police used water cannon, teargas and rubber bullets to disperse the rally.&nbsp;

The protesters have also demanded curbs to the power of King Maha Vajiralongkorn and the abolition of a strict lese majeste law that mandates up to 15 years in prison for insulting the monarchy.&nbsp;

Protesters on Wednesday peacefully occupied one of Bangkok's busiest street intersections and cheered as some leaders demanded monarchy reforms and called for their 'friends' to be freed from jail.&nbsp;

"This is a long and tiring fight. We must fight together along this path to democracy," Attapon Buapat, who was indicted for lese majeste earlier this month but later released on bail, told the crowd.&nbsp;

"Change has begun. They could only slow it down but never stop it."&nbsp;

Criminal cases have been mounting against protest leaders. The most prominent ones have already been jailed pending trial for insulting the royalty.&nbsp;

More activists, including Attapon again, could be indicted on Thursday when they were due to meet with prosecutors over their roles in the protests.&nbsp;

The Royal Palace has not commented directly on the protests. The government has said criticism of the king is unlawful and inappropriate.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Thousands of protesters gathered in the Thai capital Bangkok on Wednesday to demand reform of the monarchy and the release of jailed leaders, days after one of the most violent demonstrations since they began last year.

Thousands of protesters gathered in the Thai capital Bangkok on Wednesday to demand reform of the monarchy and the release of jailed leaders, days after one of the most violent demonstrations since they began last year. Thailand's youth protest movement emerged last year and has posed the biggest challenge to the government of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, a former army chief, who seized power in 2014 from an elected government. More than 30 civilians and police were injured in a clash at a protest near the palace on Saturday, after police used water cannon, teargas and rubber bullets to disperse the rally. The protesters have also demanded curbs to the power of King Maha Vajiralongkorn and the abolition of a strict lese majeste law that mandates up to 15 years in prison for insulting the monarchy. Protesters on Wednesday peacefully occupied one of Bangkok's busiest street intersections and cheered as some leaders demanded monarchy reforms and called for their 'friends' to be freed from jail. "This is a long and tiring fight. We must fight together along this path to democracy," Attapon Buapat, who was indicted for lese majeste earlier this month but later released on bail, told the crowd. "Change has begun. They could only slow it down but never stop it." Criminal cases have been mounting against protest leaders. The most prominent ones have already been jailed pending trial for insulting the royalty. More activists, including Attapon again, could be indicted on Thursday when they were due to meet with prosecutors over their roles in the protests. The Royal Palace has not commented directly on the protests. The government has said criticism of the king is unlawful and inappropriate. (With inputs from agencies)

Thousands of Thai protesters demand monarchy reform, jailed leaders' release  

19 protesters have been charged with sedition in Thailand also many leaders have been charged for defaming the monarchy. The protestors even reached Bangkok prosecutor's office.

19 protesters have been charged with sedition in Thailand

A fly-on-the-wall, restricted&nbsp;documentary about the royal family&nbsp;mysteriously resurfaced on YouTube 50 years and was&nbsp;quickly removed from the site

Recently, BBC found itself in a row with Buckingham Palace over the leak on YouTube of a 1969 fly-on-the-wall documentary about the royal family, famously banned by the Queen from ever being shown again.

In 1972, the Queen ordered the BBC's documentary, Royal Family, with intimate scenes of the monarch having breakfast from Tupperware containers and shirtless Prince Charles on a jetski, to be locked away and not aired again because it 'cheapens the royal family'.

The original documentary remained restricted, and although there has been some debate over who owns the copyright, the Queen's former press secretary insists it is retained by the BBC, with researchers having to pay to view it at BBC HQ, only after getting permission from Buckingham Palace first.&nbsp; 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/queen-elizabeths-old-masters-go-on-public-show-in-britain-347378" hreflang="en">Queen Elizabeth’s old masters go on public show in Britain</a>

However, weeks ago the full 110-minute footage&nbsp;leaked on YouTube, with thousands of people watching it. The making of the infamous documentary has&nbsp;featured in&nbsp;The Crown season 3.

While speaking to the Telegraph, a royal source noted, "This is a matter for the BBC. We always exercise our copyright where we can. From time to time, things pop up on the internet that should not be there. We will assume it's going to be taken down,"

The Queen's former Press Secretary Dickie Arbiter told MailOnline: "The palace will have a version of it, they have one from every broadcaster as they’re sent down and they're securely locked up, but how this one got out is for the BBC to sort out.

‘Somebody obviously nicked it from the BBC - it was a BBC documentary done with the corporation of the Royal Family, and it's BBC copyright. They made it, their equipment, their people, Antony Jay’s script, so it was their copyright. But how it got out, that's something they'll have to find out." 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/the-crown-7-times-the-netflix-series-was-factually-incorrect-349049" hreflang="en">'The Crown': 7 times the Netflix series was factually incorrect</a>

A BBC source told The Telegraph, "We will approach YouTube to have it removed. We always exercise our copyright where we can. However, it is notoriously difficult to chase these things down on YouTube once they are out there. Anybody can download it and you just end up chasing your tail."

The video appears to have been uploaded to YouTube by a new account in the name of Philip Strangeways, a reference to a mystery organisation called HM Government Public Service Films.&nbsp;

A YouTube spokesperson told FEMAIL, "This video has been removed due to a copyright claim. YouTube has copyright and content management tools to give rights holders control of their content on YouTube. When a copyright claim is filed we remove the content immediately, as is the case with this upload."

The documentary was viewed by 45million people when it was first broadcasted, ahead of Prince Charles' investiture, and was initially created to help the Windsors connect with their subjects. The film was a British phenomenon, watched over two weekends to rave reviews in June 1969, but was last shown three years later after Buckingham Palace feared it 'let the magic out' about the royals.&nbsp; 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/finding-freedom-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-biography-reveals-tensions-in-the-royal-family-316074" hreflang="en">'Finding Freedom': Meghan Markle and Prince Harry biography reveals tensions in the Royal Family</a>

According to DailyMail, even in an exhibition, The Queen: Art And Image, at the National Portrait ­Gallery, Buckingham Palace restricted the organisers to only a 90-­second clip from the film.

The other 104 minutes will remain unseen and off-limits, like the 38 hours of unused footage which is now held in the Royal Archives at Windsor, unavailable to the eyes of even serious historians and researchers

A fly-on-the-wall, restricted documentary about the royal family mysteriously resurfaced on YouTube 50 years and was quickly removed from the site Recently, BBC found itself in a row with Buckingham Palace over the leak on YouTube of a 1969 fly-on-the-wall documentary about the royal family, famously banned by the Queen from ever being shown again.

A fly-on-the-wall, restricted documentary about the royal family mysteriously resurfaced on YouTube 50 years and was quickly removed from the site Recently, BBC found itself in a row with Buckingham Palace over the leak on YouTube of a 1969 fly-on-the-wall documentary about the royal family, famously banned by the Queen from ever being shown again. In 1972, the Queen ordered the BBC's documentary, Royal Family, with intimate scenes of the monarch having breakfast from Tupperware containers and shirtless Prince Charles on a jetski, to be locked away and not aired again because it 'cheapens the royal family'. The original documentary remained restricted, and although there has been some debate over who owns the copyright, the Queen's former press secretary insists it is retained by the BBC, with researchers having to pay to view it at BBC HQ, only after getting permission from Buckingham Palace first. Queen Elizabeth’s old masters go on public show in Britain However, weeks ago the full 110-minute footage leaked on YouTube, with thousands of people watching it. The making of the infamous documentary has featured in The Crown season 3. While speaking to the Telegraph, a royal source noted, "This is a matter for the BBC. We always exercise our copyright where we can. From time to time, things pop up on the internet that should not be there. We will assume it's going to be taken down," The Queen's former Press Secretary Dickie Arbiter told MailOnline: "The palace will have a version of it, they have one from every broadcaster as they’re sent down and they're securely locked up, but how this one got out is for the BBC to sort out. ‘Somebody obviously nicked it from the BBC - it was a BBC documentary done with the corporation of the Royal Family, and it's BBC copyright. They made it, their equipment, their people, Antony Jay’s script, so it was their copyright. But how it got out, that's something they'll have to find out." 'The Crown': 7 times the Netflix series was factually incorrect A BBC source told The Telegraph, "We will approach YouTube to have it removed. We always exercise our copyright where we can. However, it is notoriously difficult to chase these things down on YouTube once they are out there. Anybody can download it and you just end up chasing your tail." The video appears to have been uploaded to YouTube by a new account in the name of Philip Strangeways, a reference to a mystery organisation called HM Government Public Service Films. A YouTube spokesperson told FEMAIL, "This video has been removed due to a copyright claim. YouTube has copyright and content management tools to give rights holders control of their content on YouTube. When a copyright claim is filed we remove the content immediately, as is the case with this upload." The documentary was viewed by 45million people when it was first broadcasted, ahead of Prince Charles' investiture, and was initially created to help the Windsors connect with their subjects. The film was a British phenomenon, watched over two weekends to rave reviews in June 1969, but was last shown three years later after Buckingham Palace feared it 'let the magic out' about the royals. 'Finding Freedom': Meghan Markle and Prince Harry biography reveals tensions in the Royal Family According to DailyMail, even in an exhibition, The Queen: Art And Image, at the National Portrait Gallery, Buckingham Palace restricted the organisers to only a 90-second clip from the film. The other 104 minutes will remain unseen and off-limits, like the 38 hours of unused footage which is now held in the Royal Archives at Windsor, unavailable to the eyes of even serious historians and researchers

Documentary on British royal family resurfaces on YouTube after 50 years

Thailand’s digital minister vowed no relent on Wednesday in a crackdown on social media content deemed illegal and said it was unlikely Facebook would follow through on plans to challenge an order to block access to a group critical of the Thai monarchy.

The “Royalist Marketplace” group, which had over 1 million members, was blocked within Thailand late on Monday after the digital ministry threatened legal action against Facebook under the country’s Computer Crime Act.

Facebook (FB.O) said it was compelled to comply and would mount a legal challenge in court.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/after-block-new-facebook-group-critical-of-thai-monarchy-gains-500000-members-323118">Also read:&nbsp;After block, new Facebook group critical of Thai monarchy gains 500,000 members</a>

The tension comes amid near daily youth-led protests against the government of a former junta chief, during which some demonstrators have made unprecedented calls for reforms of the monarchy, which is illegal to insult in Thailand.

Meanwhile, a new group with a similar name created by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a self-exiled academic and prominent critic of the monarchy, has amassed over 700,000 members in just two days.

“If they start a new group or do anything illegal again, we’ll need to act again. We’ll keep doing this no matter how many times it takes,” digital minister Puttipong Punnakanta said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-planning-to-challenge-thai-governments-demand-to-block-group-critical-of-monarchy-322913">Also read:&nbsp;Facebook planning to challenge Thai government's demand to block group critical of monarchy</a>

He said he was encouraged by Facebook’s compliance with a deadline to act on court orders, which were attached to government request to block content locally. He warned Facebook’s Thailand office of possible cybercrime charges if the orders were not observed.

“This time Facebook complied in blocking everything we flagged, which is why I don’t think Facebook will pursue legal action,” Puttipong said.

“We’re not bullies. We use Thai laws to protect Thai cyber sovereignty.”

Facebook caving to Thai government pressure set a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression online, said Rasha Abdul-Rahim of rights group Amnesty International.

“It’s welcome that Facebook is now planning legal action to challenge the government’s censorship demands, but the harm has already been done,” she said.

“The company should not have given in to the demands in the first place.”

Thailand’s digital minister vowed no relent on Wednesday in a crackdown on social media content deemed illegal and said it was unlikely Facebook would follow through on plans to challenge an order to block access to a group critical of the Thai monarchy.

Thailand’s digital minister vowed no relent on Wednesday in a crackdown on social media content deemed illegal and said it was unlikely Facebook would follow through on plans to challenge an order to block access to a group critical of the Thai monarchy. The “Royalist Marketplace” group, which had over 1 million members, was blocked within Thailand late on Monday after the digital ministry threatened legal action against Facebook under the country’s Computer Crime Act. Facebook (FB.O) said it was compelled to comply and would mount a legal challenge in court. Also read: After block, new Facebook group critical of Thai monarchy gains 500,000 members The tension comes amid near daily youth-led protests against the government of a former junta chief, during which some demonstrators have made unprecedented calls for reforms of the monarchy, which is illegal to insult in Thailand. Meanwhile, a new group with a similar name created by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a self-exiled academic and prominent critic of the monarchy, has amassed over 700,000 members in just two days. “If they start a new group or do anything illegal again, we’ll need to act again. We’ll keep doing this no matter how many times it takes,” digital minister Puttipong Punnakanta said. Also read: Facebook planning to challenge Thai government's demand to block group critical of monarchy He said he was encouraged by Facebook’s compliance with a deadline to act on court orders, which were attached to government request to block content locally. He warned Facebook’s Thailand office of possible cybercrime charges if the orders were not observed. “This time Facebook complied in blocking everything we flagged, which is why I don’t think Facebook will pursue legal action,” Puttipong said. “We’re not bullies. We use Thai laws to protect Thai cyber sovereignty.” Facebook caving to Thai government pressure set a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression online, said Rasha Abdul-Rahim of rights group Amnesty International. “It’s welcome that Facebook is now planning legal action to challenge the government’s censorship demands, but the harm has already been done,” she said. “The company should not have given in to the demands in the first place.”

Thai minister says clampdown won't stop as Facebook plans to fight order

Facebook has blocked access within Thailand to a group with million members. The popular group was named ‘Royalist Marketplace’ and the discussions primarily revolve around criticising the Thai monarchy.

Thailand Protest: Facebook blocks access to group criticising monarchy

Opposition&nbsp;members of&nbsp;Thailand's parliament objected on Thursday to an&nbsp;emergency&nbsp;decree&nbsp;transferring two army units to the command of&nbsp;King&nbsp;Maha Vajiralongkorn, with one politician saying it does not follow the laws of the constitutional monarchy.

The disagreement heightened tensions in the Southeast Asian country's transition from military rule, in which pro-army and royalist parties have portrayed their opponents as a threat to the monarchy.

This is the first time that lawmakers publicly challenged a legal procedure related to royal affairs.

King&nbsp;Vajiralongkorn was<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/newly-crowned-thai-king-carried-through-bangkok-in-royal-procession-216181"> crowned in May </a>as&nbsp;Thailand's fourth constitutional monarch after taking&nbsp;the throne after the death of his revered father in 2016.

A leader of the&nbsp;opposition&nbsp;Future Forward Party said the royal&nbsp;troop&nbsp;decree, which took effect on October&nbsp;1, inappropriately used an&nbsp;emergency&nbsp;provision of the constitution to bypass parliament, although it was confirmed by a majority of lawmakers on Thursday.

The decree&nbsp;transferred command of the Bangkok-based first and 11th Infantry Regiments from the military chain of command to the&nbsp;king's Royal Security Command.

Future Forward's secretary-general, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, said there was no immediate&nbsp;emergency&nbsp;that justified the decree.

He accused Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha of continuing to act like a military junta leader.

Prayuth, who as army chief overthrew an elected government in 2014, took office as a civilian Prime Minister in July after his pro-army party won disputed elections that the&nbsp;opposition&nbsp;says were structured to ensure continued army dominance.

Future Forward, which came in third in the March elections, said the government must follow the constitution.

"Thailand is a&nbsp;kingdom with the&nbsp;king&nbsp;as a head of state, the people have the power and the&nbsp;king&nbsp;exercises that sovereignty through parliament, cabinet, and courts as specified by the constitution," Piyabutr said.

A lawmaker from the pro-establishment Democrat Party, however, defended the decree.

"Thailand is a unique&nbsp;kingdom," said Peerapan Saleerattavipak.

"The monarchy is a representation of national security so in the&nbsp;Kingdom of&nbsp;Thailand, we could not separate national security from the monarchy," he said.

A vote later confirmed the decree by 376 votes to 70 with two abstentions, according to the final tally read out by the speaker. Screens in parliament had initially given the vote tally as 366-70. All the votes against it were from Future Forward.

King&nbsp;Vajiralongkorn has moved to consolidate his personal authority since taking&nbsp;the throne in 2016.

In July 2017, the military-appointed legislative assembly amended a 1936 law to give the&nbsp;king&nbsp;full control of the Crown Property Bureau, which manages the crown's multi-billion dollar holdings.

Public criticism of the&nbsp;king&nbsp;or his family is illegal in&nbsp;Thailand, with insults to the monarchy punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Opposition members of Thailand's parliament objected on Thursday to an emergency decree transferring two army units to the command of King Maha Vajiralongkorn, with one politician saying it does not follow the laws of the constitutional monarchy.

Opposition members of Thailand's parliament objected on Thursday to an emergency decree transferring two army units to the command of King Maha Vajiralongkorn, with one politician saying it does not follow the laws of the constitutional monarchy. The disagreement heightened tensions in the Southeast Asian country's transition from military rule, in which pro-army and royalist parties have portrayed their opponents as a threat to the monarchy. This is the first time that lawmakers publicly challenged a legal procedure related to royal affairs. King Vajiralongkorn was crowned in May as Thailand's fourth constitutional monarch after taking the throne after the death of his revered father in 2016. A leader of the opposition Future Forward Party said the royal troop decree, which took effect on October 1, inappropriately used an emergency provision of the constitution to bypass parliament, although it was confirmed by a majority of lawmakers on Thursday. The decree transferred command of the Bangkok-based first and 11th Infantry Regiments from the military chain of command to the king's Royal Security Command. Future Forward's secretary-general, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, said there was no immediate emergency that justified the decree. He accused Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha of continuing to act like a military junta leader. Prayuth, who as army chief overthrew an elected government in 2014, took office as a civilian Prime Minister in July after his pro-army party won disputed elections that the opposition says were structured to ensure continued army dominance. Future Forward, which came in third in the March elections, said the government must follow the constitution. "Thailand is a kingdom with the king as a head of state, the people have the power and the king exercises that sovereignty through parliament, cabinet, and courts as specified by the constitution," Piyabutr said. A lawmaker from the pro-establishment Democrat Party, however, defended the decree. "Thailand is a unique kingdom," said Peerapan Saleerattavipak. "The monarchy is a representation of national security so in the Kingdom of Thailand, we could not separate national security from the monarchy," he said. A vote later confirmed the decree by 376 votes to 70 with two abstentions, according to the final tally read out by the speaker. Screens in parliament had initially given the vote tally as 366-70. All the votes against it were from Future Forward. King Vajiralongkorn has moved to consolidate his personal authority since taking the throne in 2016. In July 2017, the military-appointed legislative assembly amended a 1936 law to give the king full control of the Crown Property Bureau, which manages the crown's multi-billion dollar holdings. Public criticism of the king or his family is illegal in Thailand, with insults to the monarchy punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Thai opposition protests emergency troop transfer to King

Is the royal marriage story we&rsquo;re being sold really a fairy tale come true? Or is it a story spun by Buckingham Palace for its own self-interest, one shrouded in myth and make-believe?

In the coverage of next spring&rsquo;s marriage between Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, two main narratives have emerged.

One is Markle&rsquo;s mixed-race, American background and how her &ldquo;acceptance&rdquo; to the royal family signals a monarchy willing to loosen its rigid rules.

The other is an improbable love story: A girl from South-Central Los Angeles is plucked from the streets by her dashing Prince Charming (&ldquo;How Meghan went from a seedy Los Angeles tenement to a Palace,&rdquo; as one Daily Mail story put it).

While both have elements of truth, they also ignore the royal family&rsquo;s complicated history with race and &ldquo;blood&rdquo; and its insistence on continuing outdated traditions. As a sociologist who researches questions of race, power and ideology, I believe we are missing the real significance of this marriage.

Out with the old? Not really

The &ldquo;modern royal family&rdquo; narrative overlooks the fact that the monarchy continues to embody a fundamentally traditional idea of British identity, a patriarchal institution steeped in nostalgia for the days of the empire.

In their carefully choreographed first joint interview with the BBC, Markle &ndash; a self-described feminist &ndash; confirmed that she was giving up her acting career in order to take up her new &ldquo;role&rdquo; as the wife of Prince Harry.

Meanwhile, the British establishment&rsquo;s long history of anti-Catholicism &ndash; deeply entrenched in its customs, laws and rituals &ndash; was on full view. Buckingham Palace was quick to announce that Markle would be baptised into the Church of England before the couple is married, presumably to assuage any lingering concerns that she might actually be Catholic. (As a teenager, she had attended the private Catholic Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles.)

Finally, despite some media reports, Meghan isn&rsquo;t actually about to become a princess. Because she doesn&rsquo;t come from &ldquo;royal blood,&rdquo; the arcane rules and protocols of the British aristocratic system mean she will likely be given the title &ldquo;Her Royal Highness,&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;Princess Meghan.&rdquo;

Bloody nonsense

The idea of a distinct blood category for the upper classes is, of course, absurd.

&ldquo;Bluebloods,&rdquo; we should remember, is a racialised metaphor. Skin so pale you could see the blue blood beneath &ndash; sangre azul, as the Spanish put it &ndash; signaled a distance from blackness and poverty. As the historian Kate Williams notes, it was used to differentiate &ldquo;the royals from both the tanned peasants working in the fields and the people of colour who were increasingly part of European society.&rdquo;

In 2016, when news first broke of Prince Harry&rsquo;s relationship with Markle, some coverage and commentary were driven by a racial paranoia that the supposed sanctity of the royal blood lineage was being broken (&ldquo;Harry to marry into gangster royalty?&rdquo; a Daily Star headline read). Others pointed to the danger posed not just to Harry&rsquo;s safety in dating a woman from South-Central Los Angeles, a place &ldquo;plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs,&rdquo; but to the integrity of the royal family writ large. Historically, the idea of &ldquo;Britishness&rdquo; has carried unspoken racial connotations; as cultural historian Stuart Hall noted, &ldquo;in common understanding, the nation is usually imagined as white.&rdquo; In this context, the royal family represents the national family, imagined and implicitly understood as white.

Prince Harry, to his credit, issued a rare public rebuke to the media, denouncing the &ldquo;racial undertones of comment pieces.&rdquo;

It appears, then, that this is an important moment in the slow and uneven &ndash; but nonetheless real &ndash; shift in Britain toward acknowledging the evolution of a multiracial society. But the significance of one so-called &ldquo;interracial&rdquo; marriage also shouldn&rsquo;t be overstated.

European royal families have been breeding across ethnic and national lines for centuries. The ever-so-English sounding &ldquo;House of Windsor&rdquo; is, in fact, a name made up by King George V. The real name of the Windsors was, up until then, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But in order to make it easier for the royal family to encourage the British working classes to take up arms against the Germans in 1917, they wanted to gloss over the uncomfortable fact that the family&rsquo;s background was more German than British.

Even &ldquo;black blood&rdquo; among the &ldquo;blue bloods&rdquo; isn&rsquo;t new. Some historians have suggested that Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, likely had black African ancestry. Similarly, David Williamson, co-editor of the British etiquette periodical Debrett&rsquo;s Peerage, has argued that &ldquo;all European royal families somewhere are linked to the kings of Castile. There is a lot of Moorish blood in the Portuguese royal family and it has diffused over the rest of Europe.&rdquo;

A shot in the (pale) arm?

For decades, royalists have worried about the monarchy&rsquo;s future once Queen Elizabeth II finally goes. There&rsquo;s the absurdity of believing in kings and queens ordained by God, of course. But Prince Charles, the next in line, isn&rsquo;t widely liked.

This marriage could be an unexpected lifeline. Just as The House of Windsor (n&eacute;e Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) reinvented itself 100 years ago in order to maintain its authority, a familiar chain of events could be playing out.

Ironically, it is the Windsors who stand to gain the most from this relationship by maintaining their popular standing and public reputation &ndash; and, therefore, their legitimacy &ndash; by adding a touch of beautiful, light-skinned &ldquo;diversity&rdquo; into the lily-white family tree.

&ldquo;Genetically, [Markle] is blessed,&rdquo; enthused journalist Rachel Johnson (a sister of prominent MP Boris Johnson), using eugenics-style colonial reasoning to approve of the relationship.

&ldquo;The Windsors,&rdquo; she added, &ldquo;will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.&rdquo;

Unlike most royal marriages, which tend to be politically arranged affairs driven largely by the dynastic requirements of Europe&rsquo;s aristocratic families, Harry and Meghan do appear to be genuinely in love with each other. Outside of royal circles, so-called &ldquo;mixed-race&rdquo; relationships are no longer exceptional, but actually represent an increasing number of family units in modern Britain.

By adapting to Britain&rsquo;s changing social and cultural landscape, the royal family is desperately trying to broaden its popular appeal. Contrary to the British press&rsquo;s narrative, we might say that Harry&rsquo;s the one &ldquo;marrying up&rdquo; &ndash; not the black actress from LA.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-british-monarchy-actually-adapting-to-changing-social-norms-88285" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Much of the Harry and Meghan coverage has ignored the royal family's complicated history with race and "blood" and its insistence on continuing outdated traditions.

Is the royal marriage story we’re being sold really a fairy tale come true? Or is it a story spun by Buckingham Palace for its own self-interest, one shrouded in myth and make-believe? In the coverage of next spring’s marriage between Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, two main narratives have emerged. One is Markle’s mixed-race, American background and how her “acceptance” to the royal family signals a monarchy willing to loosen its rigid rules. The other is an improbable love story: A girl from South-Central Los Angeles is plucked from the streets by her dashing Prince Charming (“How Meghan went from a seedy Los Angeles tenement to a Palace,” as one Daily Mail story put it). While both have elements of truth, they also ignore the royal family’s complicated history with race and “blood” and its insistence on continuing outdated traditions. As a sociologist who researches questions of race, power and ideology, I believe we are missing the real significance of this marriage. Out with the old? Not really The “modern royal family” narrative overlooks the fact that the monarchy continues to embody a fundamentally traditional idea of British identity, a patriarchal institution steeped in nostalgia for the days of the empire. In their carefully choreographed first joint interview with the BBC, Markle – a self-described feminist – confirmed that she was giving up her acting career in order to take up her new “role” as the wife of Prince Harry. Meanwhile, the British establishment’s long history of anti-Catholicism – deeply entrenched in its customs, laws and rituals – was on full view. Buckingham Palace was quick to announce that Markle would be baptised into the Church of England before the couple is married, presumably to assuage any lingering concerns that she might actually be Catholic. (As a teenager, she had attended the private Catholic Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles.) Finally, despite some media reports, Meghan isn’t actually about to become a princess. Because she doesn’t come from “royal blood,” the arcane rules and protocols of the British aristocratic system mean she will likely be given the title “Her Royal Highness,” rather than “Princess Meghan.” Bloody nonsense The idea of a distinct blood category for the upper classes is, of course, absurd. “Bluebloods,” we should remember, is a racialised metaphor. Skin so pale you could see the blue blood beneath – sangre azul, as the Spanish put it – signaled a distance from blackness and poverty. As the historian Kate Williams notes, it was used to differentiate “the royals from both the tanned peasants working in the fields and the people of colour who were increasingly part of European society.” In 2016, when news first broke of Prince Harry’s relationship with Markle, some coverage and commentary were driven by a racial paranoia that the supposed sanctity of the royal blood lineage was being broken (“Harry to marry into gangster royalty?” a Daily Star headline read). Others pointed to the danger posed not just to Harry’s safety in dating a woman from South-Central Los Angeles, a place “plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs,” but to the integrity of the royal family writ large. Historically, the idea of “Britishness” has carried unspoken racial connotations; as cultural historian Stuart Hall noted, “in common understanding, the nation is usually imagined as white.” In this context, the royal family represents the national family, imagined and implicitly understood as white. Prince Harry, to his credit, issued a rare public rebuke to the media, denouncing the “racial undertones of comment pieces.” It appears, then, that this is an important moment in the slow and uneven – but nonetheless real – shift in Britain toward acknowledging the evolution of a multiracial society. But the significance of one so-called “interracial” marriage also shouldn’t be overstated. European royal families have been breeding across ethnic and national lines for centuries. The ever-so-English sounding “House of Windsor” is, in fact, a name made up by King George V. The real name of the Windsors was, up until then, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But in order to make it easier for the royal family to encourage the British working classes to take up arms against the Germans in 1917, they wanted to gloss over the uncomfortable fact that the family’s background was more German than British. Even “black blood” among the “blue bloods” isn’t new. Some historians have suggested that Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, likely had black African ancestry. Similarly, David Williamson, co-editor of the British etiquette periodical Debrett’s Peerage, has argued that “all European royal families somewhere are linked to the kings of Castile. There is a lot of Moorish blood in the Portuguese royal family and it has diffused over the rest of Europe.” A shot in the (pale) arm? For decades, royalists have worried about the monarchy’s future once Queen Elizabeth II finally goes. There’s the absurdity of believing in kings and queens ordained by God, of course. But Prince Charles, the next in line, isn’t widely liked. This marriage could be an unexpected lifeline. Just as The House of Windsor (née Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) reinvented itself 100 years ago in order to maintain its authority, a familiar chain of events could be playing out. Ironically, it is the Windsors who stand to gain the most from this relationship by maintaining their popular standing and public reputation – and, therefore, their legitimacy – by adding a touch of beautiful, light-skinned “diversity” into the lily-white family tree. “Genetically, [Markle] is blessed,” enthused journalist Rachel Johnson (a sister of prominent MP Boris Johnson), using eugenics-style colonial reasoning to approve of the relationship. “The Windsors,” she added, “will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.” Unlike most royal marriages, which tend to be politically arranged affairs driven largely by the dynastic requirements of Europe’s aristocratic families, Harry and Meghan do appear to be genuinely in love with each other. Outside of royal circles, so-called “mixed-race” relationships are no longer exceptional, but actually represent an increasing number of family units in modern Britain. By adapting to Britain’s changing social and cultural landscape, the royal family is desperately trying to broaden its popular appeal. Contrary to the British press’s narrative, we might say that Harry’s the one “marrying up” – not the black actress from LA. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Is the British monarchy actually adapting to changing social norms?

Prince Harry and actress-girlfriend <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/meet-meghan-markle-the-mix-race-actress-set-to-marry-britains-prince-harry-25266" target="_blank">Meghan Markle</a> announced their <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/prince-harry-announces-his-engagement-to-actress-meghan-markle-25254" target="_blank">engagement </a>on Monday.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/harry%20and%20meghan-20171127021738.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle make their first appearance as a couple after the announcement of the engagement. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

In an interview with BBC One post-announcement, Prince Harry revealed that he proposed to now-fiance Meghan Markle over a roast chicken while fixing a meal in the kitchen.&nbsp;The couple was reportedly enjoying their time on a &quot;standard, typical night&quot; in their cottage.&nbsp;

Gushing on the proposal, Markle said,&nbsp;&ldquo;It was so sweet and natural and very romantic...he got on one knee.&rdquo;

She added&nbsp;&ldquo;As a matter of fact, I could barely let you finish proposing. I said, &lsquo;Can I say yes now&rsquo;?&rdquo;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/prince-harrys-engagement-shows-british-monarchy-has-moved-on-from-scandals-of-past-25270" target="_blank">Prince Harry&#39;s engagement shows British monarchy has moved on from scandals of past</a>

According to Prince Harry, he didn&#39;t even have time to give her the ring before she said yes and hugged him.&nbsp;

&quot;It was a really nice moment,&quot; he said. &quot;It was just the two of us and I think managed to catch her by surprise as well.&quot;

Prince Harry also spoke about the &quot;fantastic support&quot; he received from his family. He even said that&nbsp;his mother, Princess Diana, would have loved his new fiance, too. He said,&nbsp;&quot;I&#39;m sure she&#39;s with us, yeah, you know, jumping up and down somewhere else.&quot;

The royal couple, after dating for one and a half years made their first official public appearance in September in Toronto while attending <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-hold-hands-in-first-official-public-appearance-as-couple-20659" target="_blank">Invictus Games 2017. </a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/new%20(24)-20170926061127.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Prince Harry and girlfriend Meghan Markle share a moment together (AFP)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/new%20(21)-20170926060750.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The couple leave after watching an exciting and inspiring game of wheelchair tennis (AFP)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

They were introduced to each other by a mutual friend.&nbsp;

The two are set to be married in spring of 2018.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Markle described the proposal as 'sweet, natural and very romantic'

Prince Harry and actress-girlfriend Meghan Markle announced their engagement on Monday. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle make their first appearance as a couple after the announcement of the engagement. (Reuters) × In an interview with BBC One post-announcement, Prince Harry revealed that he proposed to now-fiance Meghan Markle over a roast chicken while fixing a meal in the kitchen. The couple was reportedly enjoying their time on a "standard, typical night" in their cottage. Gushing on the proposal, Markle said, “It was so sweet and natural and very romantic...he got on one knee.” She added “As a matter of fact, I could barely let you finish proposing. I said, ‘Can I say yes now’?” Also Read: Prince Harry's engagement shows British monarchy has moved on from scandals of past According to Prince Harry, he didn't even have time to give her the ring before she said yes and hugged him. "It was a really nice moment," he said. "It was just the two of us and I think managed to catch her by surprise as well." Prince Harry also spoke about the "fantastic support" he received from his family. He even said that his mother, Princess Diana, would have loved his new fiance, too. He said, "I'm sure she's with us, yeah, you know, jumping up and down somewhere else." The royal couple, after dating for one and a half years made their first official public appearance in September in Toronto while attending Invictus Games 2017. Prince Harry and girlfriend Meghan Markle share a moment together (AFP) × The couple leave after watching an exciting and inspiring game of wheelchair tennis (AFP) × They were introduced to each other by a mutual friend. The two are set to be married in spring of 2018.

Prince Harry proposed to Meghan Markle while he was cooking

Thailand&#39;s Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said on Monday he would not resign if Thais reject a military-backed draft constitution when they vote in a referendum in August. 
 
Prayuth heads the ruling junta, or National Council for Peace and Order, that took power after a bloodless coup toppled Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra&#39;s elected government in a May 2014 coup. 
 
The military had justified the coup, saying it had acted to restore stability after months of street demonstrations in Bangkok had paralysed Yingluck&#39;s government. 
 
&quot;I won&#39;t resign. I am the one who lays out the rules for this country,&quot; Prayuth told reporters at Bangkok&#39;s Government House, insisting Thais should not compare him to British Prime Minister David Cameron who announced his resignation last week after Britain voted in a referendum to quit the European Union. 
 
The junta has said it would carry out political and economic reforms before a general election in 2017 that will start a transition back to democracy. 
 
The August 7 referendum will be the first national vote in Thailand since the coup and should provide a test of the junta&#39;s popularity, experts said. 
 
Groups of all political stripes have denounced the draft constitution as undemocratic, with one major political party urging supporters to vote &quot;no&quot;. 
 
The junta has banned criticism of the charter in the run-up to the vote and, in May, the Election Commission issued rules barring anyone from campaigning for either side ahead of the referendum. 
 
In the latest crackdown on dissidents, a Thai court jailed seven activists on Friday for campaigning against the draft charter, which critics say will enshrine military power and emasculate civilian politics. 
 
(Reuters)

'I am the one who lays out the rules for this country,' says Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha

Thailand's Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said on Monday he would not resign if Thais reject a military-backed draft constitution when they vote in a referendum in August. Prayuth heads the ruling junta, or National Council for Peace and Order, that took power after a bloodless coup toppled Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's elected government in a May 2014 coup. The military had justified the coup, saying it had acted to restore stability after months of street demonstrations in Bangkok had paralysed Yingluck's government. "I won't resign. I am the one who lays out the rules for this country," Prayuth told reporters at Bangkok's Government House, insisting Thais should not compare him to British Prime Minister David Cameron who announced his resignation last week after Britain voted in a referendum to quit the European Union. The junta has said it would carry out political and economic reforms before a general election in 2017 that will start a transition back to democracy. The August 7 referendum will be the first national vote in Thailand since the coup and should provide a test of the junta's popularity, experts said. Groups of all political stripes have denounced the draft constitution as undemocratic, with one major political party urging supporters to vote "no". The junta has banned criticism of the charter in the run-up to the vote and, in May, the Election Commission issued rules barring anyone from campaigning for either side ahead of the referendum. In the latest crackdown on dissidents, a Thai court jailed seven activists on Friday for campaigning against the draft charter, which critics say will enshrine military power and emasculate civilian politics. (Reuters)

Thai PM: Won't resign no matter what August referendum outcome is

Thailand on Wednesday jailed a country singer and political activist for 7-1/2 years, on grounds of insulting the monarchy in a public speech made three years ago. 
 
The conviction swells a list of prosecutions pushed by Thailand`s military - the self-designated protectors of the monarchy - after it seized power in a coup two years ago. 
 
The junta has a zero-tolerance approach to criticism of the monarchy, making use of a draconian lese-majeste law that prescribes a prison term of up to 15 years for each offence. 
 
Thanat Thanawatcharanon, known by his stage name of Tom Dundee, gave waiting media the thumbs-up as he arrived at court on Wednesday, wearing an orange prison uniform. 
 
&quot;The sentence is much longer than we expected,&quot; said his lawyer, Saovalux Po-Ngam. &quot;We can lodge an appeal within a month but have to discuss first whether we will. In my personal view, the law should be scrapped, because the sentences are too long.&quot; 
 
Sentences for royal insults have become increasingly harsh under the junta, and one offender was jailed for a record 30 years in 2015. 
Thanat, who has been in prison since his arrest in 2014, had previously denied the charges but confessed in a sudden about-face in court on Monday. 
 
Confessing to a lese-majeste crime is routine practice in Thailand, where the accused often plead guilty in hopes of a more lenient sentence. 
 
Prosecutors said Thanat made defamatory comments against the monarchy during a 2013 speech to `red shirt` activists at a political rally in the capital, Bangkok. 
 
He was arrested and charged in July 2014, following pressure by an ultra royalist group on Thailand`s Department of Special Investigation to prosecute Thanat. 
 
For much of the past decade, Thailand has been divided along political lines between the mostly rural-based red shirt movement and the royalist-military establishment in the capital and south. 
 
Ailing King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 88, is revered by Thais who see him as a keystone of Thailand`s identity.

Thailand on Wednesday jailed a country singer and political activist for 7-1/2 years, on grounds of insulting the monarchy in a public speech made three years ago.

Thailand on Wednesday jailed a country singer and political activist for 7-1/2 years, on grounds of insulting the monarchy in a public speech made three years ago. The conviction swells a list of prosecutions pushed by Thailand`s military - the self-designated protectors of the monarchy - after it seized power in a coup two years ago. The junta has a zero-tolerance approach to criticism of the monarchy, making use of a draconian lese-majeste law that prescribes a prison term of up to 15 years for each offence. Thanat Thanawatcharanon, known by his stage name of Tom Dundee, gave waiting media the thumbs-up as he arrived at court on Wednesday, wearing an orange prison uniform. "The sentence is much longer than we expected," said his lawyer, Saovalux Po-Ngam. "We can lodge an appeal within a month but have to discuss first whether we will. In my personal view, the law should be scrapped, because the sentences are too long." Sentences for royal insults have become increasingly harsh under the junta, and one offender was jailed for a record 30 years in 2015. Thanat, who has been in prison since his arrest in 2014, had previously denied the charges but confessed in a sudden about-face in court on Monday. Confessing to a lese-majeste crime is routine practice in Thailand, where the accused often plead guilty in hopes of a more lenient sentence. Prosecutors said Thanat made defamatory comments against the monarchy during a 2013 speech to `red shirt` activists at a political rally in the capital, Bangkok. He was arrested and charged in July 2014, following pressure by an ultra royalist group on Thailand`s Department of Special Investigation to prosecute Thanat. For much of the past decade, Thailand has been divided along political lines between the mostly rural-based red shirt movement and the royalist-military establishment in the capital and south. Ailing King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 88, is revered by Thais who see him as a keystone of Thailand`s identity.

Thailand jails country singer for seven years in royal insult case

monarchy

Monarchy, News on Monarchy, stories on Monarchy, articles on Monarchy, Monarchy stories at Wion, Monarchy news, Monarchy latest news