There is a big thread in the Politics and Elections forum, discussing the reign of King Charles III of the United Kingdom. He is the head of state of the that country, but is not involved in the politics of it. The monarch in a constitutional monarchy such as the UK is not allowed to govern. That’s what the term means. The person in charge is the prime minister, not the king.
That thread belongs in one of the more gossipy forums such as Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share.
I see the premise, but having been one of many who vociferously argued in another thread that the monarchy was an integral component of the democratic government in a constitutional monarchy, I disagree with this proposal.
He has political influence behind the scenes. How much or how little is the question. Would you say discussion about an un-elected political advisor is not a political one?
The king and the PM have a weekly private meeting. OP: what do you think they are discussing there?
The structure and operation of the constitution of the UK (or any other country) is obviously a political matter. It may not (or it may) be a matter of party politics, but it is unquestionably political.
I strongly agree with the responses so far. The monarch is an integral part of the system of government in a constitutional monarchy and, moreover, the monarch has considerable reserve powers, even if most are rarely exercised. The recent visit of King Charles to Canada to deliver the Speech from the Throne was absolutely a political statement.
And while a key feature of the monarchy or their appointed representatives in Commonwealth countries is that they are non-partisan, that’s not the same as non-political. They make important political decisions such as the opening, closing, or proroguing of parliamentary sessions and officially appointing governments – or, potentially, coalitions – after an election. They’re supposed to be unbiased, but they’re certainly political in every sense of the word.
Public figures, which would absolutely include King Charles III are fair game in P&E - in much the same way P&E threads about Elon Musk offering to buy votes in the past election are. Sure, Elon wasn’t (at the time) an elected or appointed official of any government, but he was a public figure who was involved in politics.
Which forum a thread should be in is often determined by the intent of the OP. We have plenty of gossipy threads about the UK Royal Family that aren’t in P&E as well. The specific thread is probably less tightly focused than I’d like for P&E, but does go into actual P&E details quite often.
The latest episode of Eastenders, I assumed.
By the OP’s reckoning, threads about the VP of the US don’t belong either.
I am not aware of any rule saying that every thread has to be about someone with substantial political power. Just that the subject has to have a political import of some kind.
I’ll cast another vote that the OP’s idea is mistaken. So far that conclusion is unanimous amongst the responders.