King's Edinburgh party guests react to huge anti-royal stunt
Campaigners unveiled a huge sign which read "Not my King", which they had hoped would be visible to those in the palace.
(Image: Supplied)
And in a new image shared with The National, guests can be seen looking up at the sign – which is clearly visible – from the garden of the palace.
(Image: Supplied)
As the sign was unveiled, a military band could be heard from the palace performing God Save The King, which typically signals the King's arrival.
The image shared with The National suggests that the King would have been able to see the sign.
Campaigners from Republic had staged another protest earlier on Tuesday as the King and Queen arrived at Holyroodhouse Palace.
READ MORE: This is what it's actually like to apply for disability benefits
The pair arrived separately by helicopter and motorcade and were met with chants of "not my King" and "down with the crown".
The King and Queen are in Scotland until Friday for "Royal Week", where the King traditionally spends a week in Scotland every year and undertakes a series of engagements.
The individual who took the image attended the garden party and wished to stay anonymous.
Commenting, Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, said the group had aimed for the stunt to be visible to those attending the garden party.
"We were quite keen that people could see it from the party, part of the point is to keep challenging everybody," he told The National.
READ MORE: Royal family 'treating Scotland as a playground' ahead of Edinburgh visit
Smith added that it was important people who were attending the party knew that there were "serious questions" to ask about the role of the monarchy.
He added: "You're also going to find people in that party who are not necessarily staunch royalists, that will be interested and curious and wondering what's going on.
"We really do want Charles to see these things, which is why we go to all of these events around the country protesting.
"We want them to know that there is a growing opposition, so we're really pleased that they could see it very clearly from the hill."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
a day ago
- New Statesman
How to read Morgan McSweeney
Alex Karp, chief executive officer of Palantir Technologies Inc. Photo by Al Drago/Bloomberg I used to think Morgan McSweeney filled his evenings browbeating backbenchers or Sharpie-ing constituency boundaries. It is therefore pleasing to learn that the man of action is also a man of letters – and ideas. In his Spectator cover story this week, Tim Shipman reported that McSweeney currently has Alexander Karp's The Technological Republic on his bedside table. Alright, it's not Sun Tzu. It's not even Harold Macmillan paging through Trollope's He Knew He Was Right (so dedicated was Macmillan to finding moments for literary reflection that in No 10 he would hang a do-not-disturb on his reading room door saying 'Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot'). But we can read something of Macmillan's methods from his favourite writers, himself a conniving patrician straight out of the Palliser novels. And, having quite recently finished Karp's Republic myself, I think I can spy something about McSweeney's direction in his reading matter: an unstable work of techno-political theory by a Silicon Valley defence contractor. Alexander Karp is the CEO of Palantir Technologies, a tech and defence company which he co-founded with Peter Thiel, greatest and creepiest of the Maga oligarchs. And The Technological Republic is the clearest statement of Karp's belief system. The book spans anti-woke polemic, business strategy guide and Kulturkritik, but Karp is, in short, a nostalgic futurist. He believes America was made great by a partnership between entrepreneurs and government in the decades after the post-war. In those years, America shot for the stars, landed on the moon, and became the most militarised imperial power on the planet. But after that, Karp's tech-brethren got distracted by social media scrollers and grocery delivery apps. They simultaneously forsook their nation and their society, beginning to see America as a place of nightmares, not dreams. Karp believes that a new generation of patriotic industrialists is needed, to revitalise the American economy but also the American mission. And it seems he's already found them. Upon Trump's re-election, Palantir stock soared. The company has been one of the great beneficiaries of his administration, signing various deals with the federal government to produce a new generation of AI weaponry and data-driven homeland security. Though he remains a mostly opaque personality, McSweeney is generally believed to hail from his party's 'Blue Labour' faction. But Karp's a long way from the talk of 'covenants' and 'respect' which fills their seminar rooms. What are we to make of this alignment between No 10 strategy and Silicon Valley plutocrat? Palantir has long been a bogeyman of Whitehall, supposedly waiting to slurp up our NHS data for nefarious purposes. However, I don't think that's what's drawn McSweeney to Karp. Instead, this seems another instance of a political apparatchik who, desperate for a stubborn government to simply move faster, has turned for inspiration to the engineers and developers who have changed the world quicker than anyone else this century. McSweeney is frequently compared to Dominic Cummings. There appears to even be a respect between the two self-styled electioneering pros – in Cummings's recent round of interviews, McSweeney was one of the few members of this Labour government to have been spared his usual scattergun-swearing. And Cummings's own writings, and now this insight about McSweeney, reveal that both men increasingly view politics as operational, about the arrangement and direction of institutions. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Cummings was obsessed with turning No 10 into an operational hub modelled on Silicon Valley. 'Start-up' is, in his vocabulary, a rare term of approbation. It seems McSweeney agrees, or is curious to find out. If, as Keir Starmer himself recently conceded, the traditional left-right divide in politics is dead, perhaps this is what will replace it: competing theories of bureaucracy, with the object of hyper-efficient collaboration between the private and public sectors. Let no one say that this is a government without a story or ideas. [See also: Morgan McSweeney's moment of truth] Related
NBC News
a day ago
- NBC News
Hegseth halted weapons for Ukraine despite military analysis that the aid wouldn't jeopardize U.S. readiness
The Defense Department held up a shipment of U.S. weapons for Ukraine this week over what officials said were concerns about its low stockpiles. But an analysis by senior military officers found that the aid package would not jeopardize the American military's own ammunition supplies, according to three U.S. officials. The move to halt the weapons shipment blindsided the State Department, members of Congress, officials in Kyiv and European allies, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter. Critics of the decision included Republicans and Democrats who support aiding Ukraine's fight against Russia. A leading House Democrat, Adam Smith of Washington, said it was disingenuous of the Pentagon to use military readiness to justify halting aid when the real reason appears to be simply to pursue an agenda of cutting off American aid to Ukraine. 'We are not at any lower point, stockpile-wise, than we've been in the 3½ years of the Ukraine conflict,' Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, told NBC News. Smith said that his staff has 'seen the numbers' and, without going into detail, that there was no indication of a shortage that would justify suspending aid to Ukraine. Suspending the shipment of military aid to Ukraine was a unilateral step by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to three congressional aides and a former U.S. official familiar with the matter. It was the third time Hegseth on his own has stopped shipments of aid to Ukraine, the sources said. In the two previous cases, in February and in May, his actions were reversed days later. A senior Pentagon official, Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy, has backed the moves, the sources said. Colby has long advocated scaling back the U.S. commitment in Ukraine and shifting weapons and resources to the Pacific region to counter China. Lawmakers from both parties were frustrated that they were not notified in advance and were examining whether the delayed shipment violated legislation mandating security assistance for Ukraine, according to congressional aides. Those lawmakers and some European allies were trying to determine just why the Pentagon ordered the suspension and were scrambling to get it reversed. The White House has defended the decision, saying it followed an ongoing review by the Defense Department of U.S. assistance to allies and partners abroad that began last month. The review began after Hegseth issued a memo ordering the Pentagon's Joint Staff to review stockpiles of all munitions. According to three officials familiar with the matter, the assessment found that some stockpiles of high-precision munitions were at lower levels but not yet beyond critical minimums. The Joint Staff concluded that providing continued assistance to Ukraine would not drain U.S. supplies below a required threshold needed to ensure military readiness, the officials said. The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment Thursday. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell called the assessment a 'capability review" at a briefing Wednesday. 'We can't give weapons to everybody all around the world,' Parnell said. 'Part of our job is to give the president a framework that he can use to evaluate how many munitions we have where we're sending them. And that review process is happening right now and is ongoing.' Ukraine has issued urgent appeals to Washington for more air defense systems as Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukrainian cities. Over the weekend, Russia launched its biggest aerial attack of the three-year-old conflict, firing 60 missiles and 477 drones across the country. The delayed shipment included dozens of Patriot interceptors, coveted weapons for Ukraine to knock out incoming missiles, as well as 155 mm artillery rounds, Hellfire missiles, precision-guided missile systems known as GMLRS, grenade launchers, Stinger surface-to-air missiles and AIM air-to-air missiles for Ukraine's small fleet of F-16 fighter jets. In Poland and other European countries, some of the U.S. weapons had already been loaded onto trucks, ready to be delivered to Kyiv to help its government fend off Russian missile attacks and hold the line against ground forces in the country's east. Then, military officers and officials handling the shipment got word that the delivery had been called off, said two sources with knowledge of the matter. The weapons shipment was approved during the Biden administration, three U.S. officials said. Some of the weapons were pulled from U.S. stockpiles, with the Pentagon receiving funds to replenish them. Other munitions fall under a program that provides money to buy new weapons for Ukraine from American defense companies, the officials said. Those weapons are not drawn from U.S. supplies. 'Rookie mistake' Since the United States began sending large shipments of weapons to Kyiv after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, U.S. officials and commanders have grown concerned about the state of American stockpiles of munitions and other equipment. The aid effort has laid bare the inadequacy of the defense industrial base to replenish those weapons stocks. That has, in some cases, put the Pentagon at dangerously low levels of some munitions, including 155 mm artillery rounds, according to multiple U.S. officials and former military officers. In a letter to President Donald Trump, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., requested an emergency briefing from the White House and the Defense Department to review the decision 'to withhold urgent, lifesaving military assistance to Ukraine.' He argued that it was possible to both maintain adequate weapons supplies for the U.S. military and send arms badly needed by Kyiv. Dan Caldwell, a former senior Pentagon official, defended the pause by Hegseth and Colby. "They are prioritizing the safety and readiness of our own military over pleasing the foreign policy establishment, who often seem in denial about the real constraints the United States military is facing," Caldwell said. Hegseth has twice before suspended aid to Ukraine without apparent coordination with lawmakers on Capitol Hill or even within the administration. The first time, in February, drew a prickly response from the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who called the move 'a rookie mistake.' The next time was in early May, according to a Senate aide. In both cases, the suspensions of aid were reversed within days. Rep. Michael McCaul, R- Texas, a staunch supporter of military aid to Ukraine, said it was crucial to show Russia that the United States would stand behind Ukraine. 'We can't let Putin prevail now. President Trump knows that too and it's why he's been advocating for peace,' McCaul wrote on social media. 'Now is the time to show Putin we mean business. And that starts with ensuring Ukraine has the weapons Congress authorized to pressure Putin to the negotiating table.'
The National
2 days ago
- The National
SNP talk about indy in the abstract, not as an urgent national goal
What we're seeing is a slow, painful truth settling in: independence is dead in the water, not because the people have abandoned it, but because the leadership has. We've had every kind of democratic mandate imaginable, and nothing has changed. The SNP continue to speak about independence in abstract terms, like it's an aspiration for the distant future – never an urgent national goal. We're told to believe that a plebiscite election will be the turning point, but let's be honest: it won't. Westminster has already said it won't recognise the result. And without negotiation, nothing is transferred – not powers, not pensions, not currency, not sovereignty. READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Zohran Mamdani is showing how a progressive left vision can succeed Meanwhile, groups like Salvo are pushing for international legal recognition through the UN decolonisation route – doing serious, credible work. But the SNP doesn't support it, and most Scots have never even heard of it, because the broader movement – and yes, the media, including The National – continues to centre all attention on party politics while ignoring the more radical, lawful options right under our noses. Why am I writing now? Because I don't want to sit and watch this movement bleed out while we pretend everything's fine. Because I see people in your comments – angry, frustrated, calling for leadership – and I want to say: stop waiting for someone to save us. If the SNP won't lead, then the people must. We need to start building what Westminster refuses to give — a shadow infrastructure. A people's assembly, built by the movement, not party bosses. Independent Scottish media that breaks free from the BBC's framing. Local civic resistance to defend Holyrood powers and disrupt hostile Westminster laws. A national campaign to elevate Scotland's case at the UN – with billboards, street action, and international allies behind us. None of that needs permission. READ MORE: Scotch whisky wins protected status in Argentina in 'global first' We've been trained to think independence only comes after Westminster agrees. That's not how freedom works. Real independence movements create a crisis of legitimacy, not a paper trail of unanswered requests. The SNP's time as leader of this movement is up unless they change course – fast. Their job was to carry the torch. They've dropped it. We either pick it up and light the way ourselves, or we let the fire die for good. To The National, I say this: be bolder. Cover the people who are building. Don't just react to the party line – help us redefine it. This paper should be the voice of a living movement, not just a waiting room for the next SNP press release. To your readers: stop waiting for the next election. It's not coming. We are. James Murphy Bute THE latest Labour government fiasco concerning the welfare bill would suggest they have forgotten their roots. They have attacked the most vulnerable in society. In recent years we have all come through two seismic events – Brexit and the pandemic – which have impacted so negatively on our communities. Karl Marx many years ago suggested that each time there were such seismic changes, the impact of the change hugely increased the number of vulnerable people that get left behind. We are witnessing this now and at the same time the gap between rich and poor is increasing, ie the rich are continually getting richer! READ MORE: Rachel Reeves breaks silence on crying in the Commons It is abhorrent that Labour support the idea of making savings from welfare benefits – all part of the mythical trickle-down economy that does not work! Unbelievable that Labour should ignore the gravy train of: the Lords, the royals, the billionaires and millionaires, the corporate tax evaders and avoiders. All of them wheel and deal at the expense of thee and me! Labour ignored the money men and went for the vulnerable who are struggling week to week. Thankfully in Scotland our SNP government fight every day for all folks in Scotland, and that's with one hand tied behind their back. Labour offer Scotland nothing – there is no interest, empathy or connection towards us. Our choice in 2026 is to embrace independence or continue to be at the mercy of a Westminster government that regards Scotland as a region 'up north'. John Swinney must be courageous and make independence centre stage of the SNP manifesto and in each and every future policy. Jan Ferrie Ayrshire WE all witnessed a government in crisis in the House of Commons on Tuesday. In the midst of the debate on welfare reforms the government suddenly crashed, pulling the plug on parts of their proposals. Quite incredible. However, the plug was not pulled in an effort to support the disabled and vulnerable, it was pulled to stave off a government defeat by the Labour rebels. Shame on Labour. Catriona C Clark Falkirk REGARDING 'Poverty levels in Scotland track below UK' (Jun 30); that's all well and good, but if we had a citizens' income (long advocated by the Greens), poverty would be virtually ended. It should, however, be funded from publicly created site values (mainly due to infrastructure investment) and not from working people. The Scottish Government has the power to recover these values, and was even urged by a Holyrood committee to do so, back in 2021. Why hasn't it done so? George Morton Rosyth
