[wootland]

Your statement is somewhat contradictory. The monarch has zero power but also controls the military and can violently oppose the government? He’s also powerful enough that people can be arrested for protesting his coronation. Democracy was created precisely because history shows people will be consistently oppressed when they don’t govern themselves.

> Specifically, laws around limiting "improper" behaviour like rowdy protests, being rude online, and consuming porn that's a little too edgy seem to be ways in which our dislike of improper behaviour manifest politically.

Jimmy Saville was way worse than any porn, yet his main enabler just became king. The outrage about the “impolite” seems very unevenly distributed.

[ksec]

>The monarch has zero power but also controls the military and can violently oppose the government?

No. They dont.

>He’s also powerful enough that people can be arrested for protesting his coronation.

Also No. That was the government.

[wootland]

> No. They dont.

I'm responding to this post:

> If the UK ever needed to revolt against the government the monarch serves as way in which the public (and armed forces) could side with the state over the government. I cannot express how much I like that our armed forces swear allegiance to a largely powerless Monarch that represents the state rather than Rishi Sunak.