> The Woolsack is where the Lord Speaker in the House of Lords sits and resembles a large square cushion covered in red cloth. In 1938 it was re-stuffed with a blend of wool from Britain and the other wool producing nations of the Commonwealth. The woolsack is thought to have been introduced in the 14th century to reflect the economic importance of the wool trade in England.
During the restuffing in 1938, it was discovered that the original stuffing was largely horsehair.
'Lord Privy Seal' is actually an abbreviation for the 'Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal', i.e., the person who (nominally) looks after the seal used to authenticate personal documents 'signed' by the monarch before written signatures came into use. The post of Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal is now usually given to the governing party's leader in the House of Lords, and the monarch's personal seals (which no longer serve any official purpose) are held by the Lord Chamberlain, who is part of the Royal Household and not the Government.
It's a misuse. CF no slash "compare" in backpieces, references &c. C/F appears to mean something in pre spreadsheet accounting but I did not study accounting at uni, so where I got the idea it needs a slash is beyond me.
Even "down" cushions in high-end couches today are usually a PU foam core wrapped in down batting. It's impractical, expensive and unnecessary to do otherwise.
And "down" pillows are often 95% feathers 5% down, unless advertised as 100% down (and will hundreds more)
I have to disagree, PU foam has been the most useless cushion padding I've ever experienced in my life. It goes from firm + comfortable to useless in under a year for me in most cases. I've even tried replacing with the firmest PU foam available, and those attempts last maybe 2 years.
So I deem it as all those words you use, impractical, expensive, unnecessary to use PU.
An upholster can also usually wash and reuse horsehair when reupholstering a piece of furniture upholstered with horsehair. It's very resilient stuff(ing). You can also get horsehair fabric for upholstery purposes; it apparently wears like cast iron.
Am not an upholsterer, but I work with one somewhat regularly when a client wants an upholstered piece.
I agree with a comment, which appears now to be deleted, effectively that monarch's have no place in democracy.
The presence of Charles Windsor in the HoL is an affront to democracy that we should do away with. These chairs represent a fraction of the baggage of tradition that IMO should be carefully unpicked and dispensed with; parliament really needs to continue the slow progression towards sovereignty of the demos and away from the trappings of imperial oppulence and monarchic power. The mace should be smashed, melted down and used to fund a memorial to the Crown.
Even if, as some argue, it is "only symbolic", the kowtowing of the demos to a person of inherited title is a symbolism that we should be rid of.
I picked up a pair of these for £5 at Winchester dump about 20 years ago. Needed scrubbing with wire wool, rewaxing, a few mortises needing packing, and reupholstering, as they had evidently been in someone’s garden for some time.
Similar to the thread from yesterday - amazing what some people just throw away.
Seemed to have been - horsehair and shoddy stuffed and hessian webbing, oak, brass tacks, and very perished leather. I recognised them immediately as there were a few at the debating chamber at my university which had been gifted by some MP back in the day.
I’ve no idea if that dump is still the gold mine it once was - I ended up with several very nice club chairs, some Victorian wingback armchairs, and an absolutely enormous camelhair Persian rug - chairs all needed reupholstering (I became quite good at this quite quickly), and the rug just needed a damned good clean and lasted me a decade before it finally actually disintegrated. Oh, and a few 30’s valve radios which needed nothing other than new capacitors. I’d assume it was always the kids cleaning out dead mum’s place or what have you to refurnish with ikea.
Copilot says: "This chair, located directly to the left of the Speaker’s chair, remains vacant as a symbolic reminder of the time when the monarch’s messenger or royal representative would sit there."
Notice the seating behind the table in these two images, one of a session with John Berkow prosiding as speaker, I think it is under Cameron's government (noughties [1]); the other of Pitt the Younger addressing the House [2]. Neither shows a vacant seat. Perhaps it is confusing it with the opening of parliament when the Queen wasn't able to attend (2022 [3]) and her throne was left vacant?
The mace represents the king's authority in parliament, you can see it at the front edge of the table in both images ([1], [2]).
The monarch's messenger is Black Rod, they're the one who knocks on the door to call the MPs to go and listen to the "King's" Speech.
All of these chairs are upholstered. I've found it interesting that chairs were exclusively hard-surfaced for nearly all of human history, even among royalty who could afford a cushion. Hard chairs were seen as promoting discipline and moral uprightness while comfortable seating would have signalled weakness, decadence (in the archaic sense) or laziness.
Chairs themselves were a status symbol. Commoners would use stools or benches.
Passports are delivered "in the name of the king", thus from this point of view it makes sense to skip the "I hand myself my own passport" step. So british.
Of course, I wonder what the rest of the world thinks about this, an individual with no passport. Surely there are some edge cases where it does not fit in procedures.
In principle International Law says that all heads of state get all the same affordances as Diplomats, which certainly makes sense if you imagine the Diplomats as just messengers - if Bill Smith can be here because Bill is King Steve's messenger, obviously King Steve himself could come instead and isn't subject to your normal rules, makes sense.
In practice however... power matters. Eswatini isn't going to pretend it has the power to arrest Putin, but I can certainly imagine if Russia wanted to arrest the King of Eswatini they'd just do it - what's Eswatini going to do about it? If they've got a halfway plausible rationale, nobody wants to start a war over that, at least nobody who might win.
Likewise under the same legal theory neither Ireland nor South Africa could currently arrest Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the warrant for his arrest on a charge of crimes against humanity. But in practice I'm sure Natanyahu would rather not find out the hard way whether that theory holds up, in either Dublin or Cape Town. Israel has a substantial military force, and the Americans might back them, but, neither Ireland nor South Africa are defenceless and this sounds like a bad way to find out for sure.
It used to be much harder to get a bare UK domain. Restrictions were loosened in the early 2010s, with priority given to those who already owned a domain that was second level .co.uk etc.
Easy to come by though. I own one. My main concern was when giving email addresses over the phone that people would automatically put .co.uk, but so far that hasn't actually happened!
I have a similar problem: For purely vanity reasons, I have a .co e-mail. Whenever giving it over the phone, I say something like "blah blah blah, dot co; no UK, just dot co". So far this has worked, but -- along with my difficult to spell domain -- I somewhat regret my decision!
Humans really like having a figurehead, a living symbol of their country. A monarch provides this living symbol without giving them any apparent democratic legitimacy - it's obvious that the King wasn't chosen by the people, he's just luck of the draw and so if he tried to seize power that's obviously illegitimate.
In contrast, an elected President has democratic legitimacy and we see over, and over, and over what happens is that a President takes the opportunity to try to seize power. It used to happen that I'd explain this and then Americans, who apparently don't study history, would object that obviously this would never happen with their President ...
> A monarch provides this living symbol without giving them any apparent democratic legitimacy - it's obvious that the King wasn't chosen by the people, he's just luck of the draw and so if he tried to seize power that's obviously illegitimate.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away.
With an executive president, sure: but when the president is largely ceremonial and/or a constitutional backstop (much like a constitutional monarch, in fact, except elected), I think the risk is much less.
And it's not like constitutional monarchs are risk-free, either: see, for example, the Shah of Iran in 1953.
That's not really true. The king conceptually has a lot of power - he appoints the Prime Minister (which can be anyone he wants it to be) and can effectively dissolve Parliament whenever he wants. He is also the head of the armed forces, who all swear allegiance to the King, not to Parliament or whatever.
In practice, this power exists on the understanding that the King won't actually use it, but they are powers that he does have.
That's not true these days, the King doesn't actually have those powers themselves - even on paper.
The power actually sits with "The Crown" not the King personally. "The Crown" is a legal entity that is represented by the King but not actually wielded by them. The Prime Minister advises the King on use of those powers which is what actually creates the legal conditions where they're effected by The Crown.
A good example of this is when Boris Johnson unlawfully prorogued parliament in 2019. The Supreme Court ruled that his advice to Queen Elizabeth to prorogue parliament was unlawful, and therefore "The Crown" could not have prorogued parliament and parliament was never prorogued. This would not be the case if it were a power that the Queen exercised themselves.
If the King were to attempt to dissolve parliament without advice from the PM by generating an order in council and sending it to Parliament then the supreme court would simply rule that he hadn't dissolved parliament.
If the King — without the support of the general populace or of the parliament, but acting in his own interests, like a king of old — dissolved the Parliament, he could and very swiftly would be ousted, legally.
The line of succession would be followed until an individual was found who was willing to support the democracy. This was proven in 1685.
They swear allegiance to the King (or Queen) — but it’s understood that a new King or Queen can be swapped in. The extremely stilted and socially restrained manner in which Queen Elizabeth (for example) behaves is because they entirely know that their family does not hold the nation hostage, it’s quite the opposite.
It would seem that way but per person, I pay 5 euro for the European parlement, 5 for our king, 3 euro for weapon research in genocidal Israël and 20 euro for some pointless meat grinder in Ukraine.
Our king (Netherlands) has 65% approval rating. In political leadership only Modi scores higher. King of Denmark has 94%. Norway 80-90%
Are you suggesting we get rid of kings day and work in stead? It would be worse than canceling easter. Imagine in 2025 we celebrate resurrection? Pretty funny if you think about it.
> Are you suggesting we get rid of kings day and work in stead?
Why not just replace it with Labour Day? Or some kind of Independence Day - I bet we can come up with a reasonable start-of-country date.
The concept of a decorative politically-neutral head-of-state is solid, but we could just as well replace the king with an elected figure, like Germany has. Meanwhile, it would get rid of a filthy rich family constantly using their "god-given" connections to break the law and further enrich themselves.
During the restuffing in 1938, it was discovered that the original stuffing was largely horsehair.