
For Brits: click Republican? on the Guardian front page to hide royal news - dbuxton
http://www.guardian.co.uk
======
JumpCrisscross
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_Ki...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom)

~~~
oelmekki
The name for the US republican party has always surprised me, especially
because the other party is "democrat". Here in France too, "republican" mostly
means "a non royalist administration". Democratic then precises what kind of
organization. So, it kind of sounds like US republicans do not stand for
democracy.

~~~
ricree
If I'm remembering my history right, there were two main reasons for the name.
It was, in part, a callback to the older, defunct, Democratic-Republican party
that had been around in the early US.

It was also a mild dig against the Democratic party, implying that their
support of slavery stood against republican ideals.

~~~
oelmekki
I see, thanks for clarifying.

I don't know much about early US history, I think I'll dig in, because having
democrats being pro slavery and republicans anti slavery is something I
wouldn't have expected.

~~~
ecopoesis
In the US, we had six party systems since the revolution. Each time we
translation, we get two mostly new political parties which sometimes reuse the
names of the defunct parties. Wikipedia has a good description:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States)

~~~
tehwalrus
you (GP) could also check out the XKCD of american political history. it has
quite a few of the party names that people used throughout (which are
entertaining, in a geeky kind of way):

[http://xkcd.com/1127/](http://xkcd.com/1127/)

full res: [http://xkcd.com/1127/large/](http://xkcd.com/1127/large/)

~~~
oelmekki
Thanks you all, this has been very instructive. I realize I had a massive
misinterpretation about left and right in the US.

That's because, in France, left wing has always been associated to humanism
(humans first, economics then) and universal rights (the whole world deserve
to have rights), while right wing is most about economics and nationalism.

From what I understand, US left wing is historically about equality for the
"real USians" (kind of nationalism of the poors) while right wing, until
getting own by far right in XXth's end, was for a very liberal society, be it
in term of economics or in term of social rights.

This would explain a lot in the recent NSA reactions, where we were very
shocked that the debate seemed to focus on whether or not US citizen were
spied, rather than if mass surveillance was a problem at all.

Am I correct, here ?

------
m_ram
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
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
_> 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.

------
alan_cx
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
> _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?

~~~
corford
I think the royal family actually works out as a net positive economically
when you factor in the tourism income they generate.

It's also quite nice having someone connected with government that has been
around longer than one or two political terms and thus has a wealth of
experience to draw from and can an act in a way that's above short term
popularism. If you ask even the most die hard anti-monarchists in the UK, I
believe most of them would agree that the Queen has done a very good job.
They're more concerned with her offspring and what happens when she dies.

Edit: forgot to mention too that the Queen, Charles, Harry, William, Kate and
other immediate family members spend an enormous amount of their time directly
involved in charity work.

~~~
youngtaff
We'd get the tourism anyway - people got to Stratford Upon Avon and
Shakespeare has been dead for years.

What we get from monarchy is an ever expanding line of spongers and hangers on
who we're expected to support.

Someone will no doubt be along in a minute to say we don't support them
financially as they are the crown and generate wealth that way but I'd argue
that was all stolen from the common man anyway (plus there's lots of hidden
costs such as policing and security that don't come out of the royal budget)

The French had it right with Louis XVI.

We need a non-political president like the Irish, German and Israeli's have.

~~~
untog
_people got to Stratford Upon Avon and Shakespeare has been dead for years._

There was only ever one Shakespeare. There have been hundreds of royal
families- the British one is notable because it still exists today. Take that
away and they're just one of many, and tourists would be far, far less
interested.

Then what do we promote? The Lake District?

~~~
youngtaff
Oh and people have stopped visiting palaces like Versailles because the French
no longer have a monarchy?

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

~~~
claudius
For a start, the Americans likely don’t finance the royal family or have to
accept their tax avoidance.

~~~
lotsofcows
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
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
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...

------
tobych
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
They're using localstorage. Run the following in your browsers console before
and after clicking the link:

localStorage.getItem('royalRepub')

------
comice
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?

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

------
Graham24
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
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.

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

------
dregin
The link should just read "FUCK TABLOIDS!"

------
tehwalrus
this. is. awesome.

