For Brits: click Republican? on the Guardian front page to hide royal news

Note to Americans: &quot;Republican&quot; in the U.K. refers to the &quot;movement which seeks to remove the British monarchy and replace it with a republic that has a non-hereditary head of state&quot; [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Republicanism_in_the_United_Ki...</a>

When I switch to the UK edition and select &quot;Republican?&quot;, the lead story in the right column changes from &quot;Duchess of Cambridge admitted to hospital in early stages of labour&quot; to &quot;The world&#x27;s best swimming pools.&quot; I can&#x27;t really decide which is more newsworthy.

Heh, I&#x27;m massively pro Royal. But I really don&#x27;t give a toss about tittle tattle stories like babies, etc. Even I would click &quot;republican&quot;.

I often wonder who loves the Royal Family more, the British or the Americans.

Shame they&#x27;re not tracking its use, at least just for fun: I can&#x27;t see an HTTP request going out when I click the toggly link. The Wikipedia page quoted elsewhere here cites a Guardian and Observer (same company) poll reporting 54% support for the abolition of the monarchy.

Why not tell it how it really is and allow us to switch between &quot;news&quot; and &quot;gossip&quot;.<p>Or perhaps leave gossip to the gossip rags?

The Brazilian O Globo newspaper site could use an option like this on the Pope&#x27;s visit.

Not that long ago, a UK newspaper call The Independant refused to cover any royal stories at all.<p>I was saddened when they published the birth of that Harry in a column on the inside pages, it should not have been covered at all.<p>I do not know if the Indie still has this policy.

I&#x27;m quite sure they did the same thing for the Royal Wedding.

The link should just read &quot;FUCK TABLOIDS!&quot;

this. is. awesome.