9 ms·

For Brits: click Republican? on the Guardian front page to hide royal news

63 points by dbuxton 13y ago

tehwalrus 13y ago
this. is. awesome.
dregin 13y ago
The link should just read "FUCK TABLOIDS!"
vermontdevil 13y ago
I often wonder who loves the Royal Family more, the British or the Americans.
- claudius 13y ago
  For a start, the Americans likely don’t finance the royal family or have to accept their tax avoidance.
  - nnnnni 13y ago
    Oh wow, I never thought about the tax avoidance part.
  - lotsofcows 13y ago
    You list that as two separate things. We don't directly finance the royal family although various members get paid very well for various public engagements. Tax avoidance implies breaking the law. The tax arrangements with the royal family reflect the unique position as de facto holders of much UK "public" property. This is being sorted out with the separation of Crown Property and the various family member's private property and the definition of state / private events. As this is resolved, the royal family take on a greater tax burden. The Queen has been paying income tax for decades. People seem to separate the Royal Family from other rich and powerful people in the country. They all got there the same way, playing the game of capitalism (in which inheritance / nepotism is inherent)) better than us. If the UK dropped its monarchy, these people wouldn't just disappear. They would still be massively rich. They would still, fortunately, act as a tourist magnet (although probably to a lesser degree). They would still be plastered all over the papers. And we'd probably end up replacing them with some voted in leader to the 2nd house. Cue more politicians and even worse media frenzy. Woot!
    - shellac 13y ago
      No, 'evasion' implies breaking the law. I think the parent was referring specifically to Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall's curious tax affairs. As you say, the rest of the rest pay tax.
      - lotsofcows 13y ago
        I was going to say that in the UK the two are the same, however it seems we have adopted the USAian usages. Apparently, my knowledge of tax law is stuck in the 70s...
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Tax avoidance implies breaking the law. At least in US usage it doesn't. Tax avoidance specifically is not breaking the law, whereas tax evasion specifically is breaking the law.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - sanswork 13y ago
    Nor does the UK they are a profit generator not a cost centre.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  I love the fact that Americans, to turn the royal baby news back on, would have to click the button called "Royalist?" - the irony is wonderful.
- eli 13y ago
  Anecdotally, I suspect the Americans are more interested. American TV personality Barbara Walters interviewed a Kate Middleton lookalike--a waitress who is not pregnant--about how the baby was doing.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  I'm English. I was visiting a friend in Connecticut about 10 years ago. I remember the taxi driver saying that I must be really happy when he found out I was English. I asked why, and he said because it was the Queens birthday. He seemed surprised when I said that not only did I not know this, but that I didn't care either, and that most of my British friends also didn't give a toss about the Royal Family either. I think he had a hard time believing this.
m_ram 13y ago
When I switch to the UK edition and select "Republican?", the lead story in the right column changes from "Duchess of Cambridge admitted to hospital in early stages of labour" to "The world's best swimming pools." I can't really decide which is more newsworthy.
- JumpCrisscross 13y ago
  I was musing on if U.S. news sources did this with particularly partisan content it might promote a less partisan news-space. Countering that was my reaction upon seeing this: "they really ought to be able to predict who would click that link and default the page to the correct setting". Creating echo chambers minimises friction by relieving consumers of having to continuously re-evaluate their positions given the other sides' points.
  - JonnieCache 13y ago
    >they really ought to be able to predict who would click that link and default the page to the correct setting That would deny republicans the satisfaction of clicking on the button as they shout "FUCK YOUUUU QUEEN!" inside their heads. Like almost everything to do with the british state, this is 90% ceremony, which ultimately serves to prevent us cutting down the royals in the street like dogs in the manner of the continentals.
JumpCrisscross 13y ago
Note to Americans: "Republican" in the U.K. refers to the "movement which seeks to remove the British monarchy and replace it with a republic that has a non-hereditary head of state" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Ki...
- bittired 13y ago
  I guess the closest thing we have would be a confederate flag button in the U.S. That flag still seems to be embraced by the area of the country that most wishes to seceed (part of South Carolina). As for a U.S. "Republican" button, Google basically already has that of sorts in their news; it attempts to determines that you don't respond well to certain news and won't show those items. I don't read Google news much anymore though, because I feel like they intentionally or otherwise are influencing my world-view.
  - davidw 13y ago
    > confederate flag That's comparing Apples and Cactuses and doesn't strike me as equivalent at all.
    - bittired 13y ago
      Thanks! Corrected. You're right that it isn't equivalent. There is no substantial effort afaik to only rid one of the branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), so the secession movement is the closest I can think of to the UK's Republican party, which really isn't that close at all.
      - claudius 13y ago
        The UK's republican movement doesn’t want to get rid off a branch of government, but merely wants to change how the person to occupy a certain position is chosen. The actual effect of abolishing the UK monarchy on politics would be close to zero.
comice 13y ago
Why not tell it how it really is and allow us to switch between "news" and "gossip". Or perhaps leave gossip to the gossip rags?
alan_cx 13y ago
Heh, I'm massively pro Royal. But I really don't give a toss about tittle tattle stories like babies, etc. Even I would click "republican".
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Heh, I'm massively pro Royal It's 2013. Why would you be that? You like paying money for some blood-line family to sit and have the good life?
  - dorfsmay 13y ago
    Not OP, but the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power (the monarch can dissolve the parliament) and that they cannot be as corrupted as an elected or appointed person.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power Em, you can have an elected President (like France IIRC). No reason to have some arbitrary blood-line human. >and that they cannot be as corrupted as an elected or appointed person If history is anything to go by, they can be even more corrupt and corrupted. Nero was a monarch.
      - shawabawa3 13y ago
        > Em, you can have an elected President (like France IIRC). No reason to have some arbitrary blood-line human. Recently I've come to think that elected is not better than something completely arbitrary (blood), and may even be worse. At least which an arbitrary decision you might get a nice person, with elections you never seem to
        coldtea 13y ago
        The use a lottery -- as the ancient Greeks did for some officials. And pay modestly. Not need to feed and clothe and have huge palaces for a whole range of parasites.
tobych 13y ago
Shame they're not tracking its use, at least just for fun: I can't see an HTTP request going out when I click the toggly link. The Wikipedia page quoted elsewhere here cites a Guardian and Observer (same company) poll reporting 54% support for the abolition of the monarchy.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  They're using localstorage. Run the following in your browsers console before and after clicking the link: localStorage.getItem('royalRepub')
personlurking 13y ago
The Brazilian O Globo newspaper site could use an option like this on the Pope's visit.
ot 13y ago
I'm quite sure they did the same thing for the Royal Wedding.
Graham24 13y ago
Not that long ago, a UK newspaper call The Independant refused to cover any royal stories at all. I was saddened when they published the birth of that Harry in a column on the inside pages, it should not have been covered at all. I do not know if the Indie still has this policy.
- chestnut-tree 13y ago
  I feel the media coverage of the Royal birth has been excessive. Is it really worthy of being the top headline story? The BBC is one of the worst offenders - they have an entire page devoted to "live" coverage! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23413944 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23413944 It's pretty ridiculous. The BBC's coverage of anything related to the Royal Family is always far too fawning and sycophantic.

63 points by dbuxton 13y ago

tehwalrus 13y ago

this. is. awesome.

dregin 13y ago

The link should just read "FUCK TABLOIDS!"

vermontdevil 13y ago

I often wonder who loves the Royal Family more, the British or the Americans.

claudius 13y ago
For a start, the Americans likely don’t finance the royal family or have to accept their tax avoidance.
- nnnnni 13y ago
  Oh wow, I never thought about the tax avoidance part.
- lotsofcows 13y ago
  You list that as two separate things. We don't directly finance the royal family although various members get paid very well for various public engagements. Tax avoidance implies breaking the law. The tax arrangements with the royal family reflect the unique position as de facto holders of much UK "public" property. This is being sorted out with the separation of Crown Property and the various family member's private property and the definition of state / private events. As this is resolved, the royal family take on a greater tax burden. The Queen has been paying income tax for decades. People seem to separate the Royal Family from other rich and powerful people in the country. They all got there the same way, playing the game of capitalism (in which inheritance / nepotism is inherent)) better than us. If the UK dropped its monarchy, these people wouldn't just disappear. They would still be massively rich. They would still, fortunately, act as a tourist magnet (although probably to a lesser degree). They would still be plastered all over the papers. And we'd probably end up replacing them with some voted in leader to the 2nd house. Cue more politicians and even worse media frenzy. Woot!
  - shellac 13y ago
    No, 'evasion' implies breaking the law. I think the parent was referring specifically to Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall's curious tax affairs. As you say, the rest of the rest pay tax.
    - lotsofcows 13y ago
      I was going to say that in the UK the two are the same, however it seems we have adopted the USAian usages. Apparently, my knowledge of tax law is stuck in the 70s...
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Tax avoidance implies breaking the law. At least in US usage it doesn't. Tax avoidance specifically is not breaking the law, whereas tax evasion specifically is breaking the law.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sanswork 13y ago
  Nor does the UK they are a profit generator not a cost centre.
tehwalrus 13y ago
I love the fact that Americans, to turn the royal baby news back on, would have to click the button called "Royalist?" - the irony is wonderful.
eli 13y ago
Anecdotally, I suspect the Americans are more interested. American TV personality Barbara Walters interviewed a Kate Middleton lookalike--a waitress who is not pregnant--about how the baby was doing.
mike-cardwell 13y ago
I'm English. I was visiting a friend in Connecticut about 10 years ago. I remember the taxi driver saying that I must be really happy when he found out I was English. I asked why, and he said because it was the Queens birthday. He seemed surprised when I said that not only did I not know this, but that I didn't care either, and that most of my British friends also didn't give a toss about the Royal Family either. I think he had a hard time believing this.

m_ram 13y ago

When I switch to the UK edition and select "Republican?", the lead story in the right column changes from "Duchess of Cambridge admitted to hospital in early stages of labour" to "The world's best swimming pools." I can't really decide which is more newsworthy.

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
I was musing on if U.S. news sources did this with particularly partisan content it might promote a less partisan news-space. Countering that was my reaction upon seeing this: "they really ought to be able to predict who would click that link and default the page to the correct setting". Creating echo chambers minimises friction by relieving consumers of having to continuously re-evaluate their positions given the other sides' points.
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  >they really ought to be able to predict who would click that link and default the page to the correct setting That would deny republicans the satisfaction of clicking on the button as they shout "FUCK YOUUUU QUEEN!" inside their heads. Like almost everything to do with the british state, this is 90% ceremony, which ultimately serves to prevent us cutting down the royals in the street like dogs in the manner of the continentals.

JumpCrisscross 13y ago

Note to Americans: "Republican" in the U.K. refers to the "movement which seeks to remove the British monarchy and replace it with a republic that has a non-hereditary head of state" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Ki...

bittired 13y ago
I guess the closest thing we have would be a confederate flag button in the U.S. That flag still seems to be embraced by the area of the country that most wishes to seceed (part of South Carolina). As for a U.S. "Republican" button, Google basically already has that of sorts in their news; it attempts to determines that you don't respond well to certain news and won't show those items. I don't read Google news much anymore though, because I feel like they intentionally or otherwise are influencing my world-view.
- davidw 13y ago
  > confederate flag That's comparing Apples and Cactuses and doesn't strike me as equivalent at all.
  - bittired 13y ago
    Thanks! Corrected. You're right that it isn't equivalent. There is no substantial effort afaik to only rid one of the branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), so the secession movement is the closest I can think of to the UK's Republican party, which really isn't that close at all.
    - claudius 13y ago
      The UK's republican movement doesn’t want to get rid off a branch of government, but merely wants to change how the person to occupy a certain position is chosen. The actual effect of abolishing the UK monarchy on politics would be close to zero.

comice 13y ago

Why not tell it how it really is and allow us to switch between "news" and "gossip". Or perhaps leave gossip to the gossip rags?

alan_cx 13y ago

Heh, I'm massively pro Royal. But I really don't give a toss about tittle tattle stories like babies, etc. Even I would click "republican".

coldtea 13y ago
>Heh, I'm massively pro Royal It's 2013. Why would you be that? You like paying money for some blood-line family to sit and have the good life?
- dorfsmay 13y ago
  Not OP, but the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power (the monarch can dissolve the parliament) and that they cannot be as corrupted as an elected or appointed person.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >the typical justification is to have a human being overseeing the highest form of power Em, you can have an elected President (like France IIRC). No reason to have some arbitrary blood-line human. >and that they cannot be as corrupted as an elected or appointed person If history is anything to go by, they can be even more corrupt and corrupted. Nero was a monarch.
    - shawabawa3 13y ago
      > Em, you can have an elected President (like France IIRC). No reason to have some arbitrary blood-line human. Recently I've come to think that elected is not better than something completely arbitrary (blood), and may even be worse. At least which an arbitrary decision you might get a nice person, with elections you never seem to
      - coldtea 13y ago
        The use a lottery -- as the ancient Greeks did for some officials. And pay modestly. Not need to feed and clothe and have huge palaces for a whole range of parasites.

tobych 13y ago

Shame they're not tracking its use, at least just for fun: I can't see an HTTP request going out when I click the toggly link. The Wikipedia page quoted elsewhere here cites a Guardian and Observer (same company) poll reporting 54% support for the abolition of the monarchy.

mike-cardwell 13y ago
They're using localstorage. Run the following in your browsers console before and after clicking the link: localStorage.getItem('royalRepub')

personlurking 13y ago

The Brazilian O Globo newspaper site could use an option like this on the Pope's visit.

ot 13y ago

I'm quite sure they did the same thing for the Royal Wedding.

Graham24 13y ago

Not that long ago, a UK newspaper call The Independant refused to cover any royal stories at all. I was saddened when they published the birth of that Harry in a column on the inside pages, it should not have been covered at all. I do not know if the Indie still has this policy.

chestnut-tree 13y ago
I feel the media coverage of the Royal birth has been excessive. Is it really worthy of being the top headline story? The BBC is one of the worst offenders - they have an entire page devoted to "live" coverage! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23413944 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23413944 It's pretty ridiculous. The BBC's coverage of anything related to the Royal Family is always far too fawning and sycophantic.