[astrange]

Nobody in the UK cares about "criticism of the government". That's a paranoid concept that only makes sense in a presidential system like the US.

In Westminster systems you can kick out the government all you want and often do. The point of the constitutional monarchy is to separate the people you "shouldn't criticize" from the people who actually have any power.

The reason they're doing this is that British people hate themselves, hate their children, and the purpose of the country is to take everyone's money and give it to pensioners.

[msla]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/queen-dies-protesters-arrest...

> A man who was arrested by police in England for asking who elected King Charles III says he’s worried that his arrest could have a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression in the country.

[astrange]

That's my point. King Charles isn't the government. Nobody thinks he is either.

Keir Starmer is "the government" if you want someone. And he's at 27% popularity.

[msla]

"The king of a country is not connected to that country's government" is a kind of hair-splitting I really, truly cannot abide.

[astrange]

That's the whole point of a constitutional monarchy!

The king's literal job is to not be the government. He gets to be the emotional symbol of the country and be treated with respect in exchange for promising to never actually do anything.

Most of them pretend the monarch is allowed to do things (as long as the government tells them what to do first), but in Japan and Sweden they don't even have that power. The emperor of Japan is basically just a prisoner we (the US, who wrote their constitution) keep in a palace for fun. They seem to like this and have taken to being the most boring family possible; the current emperor's official hobby is "water" and he stopped playing the violin because he thought it was too interesting.

As for why the UK still has lese majeste, beats me.

[msla]

If the king weren't in the government, the government wouldn't arrest people for disrespecting him.