Anti-abortion positions have been in mainstream political debate here forever. It wasn’t even legalised nationwide before 2020. I don’t think there ever really has been a time when anti-abortion positions were fringe, and I doubt there ever truly ever will be. It’s not like same-sex marriage and divorce where it’ll kinda just become the norm.

I think it’s possible to allow google search bots but not Gemini bots?

BALDY BALDY OVER THERE, WHAT’S IT LIKE TO HAVE NO HAIR? IS IT HOT OR IS IT COLD? I DON’T KNOW BECAUSE I’M NOT- seagull noise, followed by a splatter

Throughout most of British history, the King’s consort has been referred to simply as Queen. The term was only really used during the period between the Ascension and the Coronation to avoid confusion with Her Late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

“Queen Mother” is also another title as they retain their stylings, so I guess you might differentiate between a Queen Consort and a Queen Mother then. Fun fact: When Elizabeth II ascended to the Throne, Queen Mary of Teck was still alive and so was Queen Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. So there were three Queens.

I wonder what Queen Camilla’s title will be if His Majesty passes before she does. My bets would be on Queen Dowager ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Edit: seems my bets are right after a quick google. Mary of Teck could have actually been briefly Queen Dowager, but she just rather stuck with simply “Queen Mary”.

Don’t know how the UK will recover from this tbh

I thought they were sausages

Splatoon was really good at this one

Once I was in an aviation museum and we were told that we weren’t allowed in some of the aircraft cockpits. The reasoning given was because while the aeroplanes are no-longer functional, the same couldn’t be said about the ejection seat

It’s “Your Majesty”. Straight to the tower!

Royal speeches is part of how Parliament operates… The King sets forth what the Prime Minister has told him what the agenda is. Sure, it’s steeped in ceremony and history, but the British constitutional monarchy system has worked for centuries, and anyone who thinks that removing this process will add wealth taxes or is even necessary for wealth taxes is delusional.

The lady in the video itself doesn’t even say anything about the system. She just states that the agenda wasn’t up to scratch. If anything, the whole system was a benefit here due to the transparency of the Government’s shortcomings laid out by the speech.

If every wealthy person paid as much into the treasury from their possessions as the King did (typically 70%), we wouldn’t be complaining.

Lastly, the King isn’t even super-super rich. He had less money than Rishi Sunak did. The King is estimated to have around £500 million for personal spending at the end of the day, which is a lot, but he’s not a billionaire. If anything, it probably calls for reflection that our own King who we dress in gold, silk, diamonds and pageantry isn’t even scratching the surface of the “super wealthy” who are in the billions.

“zealous atheists” links to the article for New Atheism which is even funnier

Paywall.

Only 5? Lucky.

Supply chain attacks are becoming so common these days

Are you referring to Starmer?

Wouldn’t reform not get more seats if we used PR? They did get like 30% of the vote in 2024 iirc

Yeah, someone pointed it out to me. I kind of see it now

Yeah lol. I don’t get why people online are so stubborn and close-minded these days. We come on here to learn.

I’m just too sheltered I guess

True