Yesterday’s revelation that Prince Charles sees Cabinet Office memoranda denied to most ministers did not spark as much public outrage as might be expected. Part of that is because of the view that, by and large, Charles is a fairly decent old stick with some surprisingly progressive opinions.
The problem is, of course, that with a monarchy you have no choice what you get. The defence deployed yesterday across all media was that this is a longstanding practice, in place for many decades. What they did not tell you is that it was instituted at the insistence of the Prince of Wales who was the future Edward VIII, and at the very least sympathetic to fascism. Strange how the media omitted that bit, don’t you think?
I am given to understand that William has very much the private political opinions you would expect from an extremely rich and not very bright person educated at St Andrews University, that strange foreign neo-con enclave perched on the Neuk of Fife. The only university with not one but two professors on the board of the Henry Jackson Society.
Yesterdays post deleted?
Mark
It is still there for me. Click on the link just above left the heading of this post.
Saudi Arabian Royals want in. Sultan of Brunei wants in. Commonwealth wants in. Kurdistan wants in. Europe wants in. China wants in.
Scotland, Turkey and Malaysia want out. Funny how some countries remember British Fascist trickery and terrorism and others are happy to let byegones be byegones.
And of course it was revealed also that William also receives some of the cabinet papers-if not all.
Maybe it did not cause too much public outrage because there is so much to be outraged by, that this seems insignificant.
However i think the whole edifice is being dragged into widespread disrepute. It becomes ever more preposterous that these habits of a past imperialism persist. The idea that William, with his modest intellectual gifts, has anything to offer on weighty matters, makes a laughing stock of our (un)constitutional process.
My apologies Craig, you’re quite right
“Part of that is because of the view that, by and large, Charles is a fairly decent old stick with some surprisingly progressive opinions.”
Anyone reckon the recent “Black Spider” memo articles in the Graun were a poor PR stunt by House of Windsor? Charles is imho also a decent man, and the memos made him look good.
“a fairly decent old stick with some surprisingly progressive opinions”?
I think not.
Any one who remembers Squidgygate will remember that, in the words of the BBC, “other brands of feminine hygiene products are available” and that Prince Charles is fit only for the purpose intended by the Establishment.
The day that loon is crowned, I am moving out of the country.
Surprised you haven’t mentioned another facticle:
William went to St Andrews in 2001, and subsequently changed his major from History of Art, not being much interested in Mum’s priceless collection, to Geography. Although Adam Werritty’s dad, Alan, had ceased to be a lecturer in the Geography department (went to Dundee), he remained Visiting Scholar and very close to the department thereafter, until his retirement in 2010. He is still listed on the St. A website:
https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/alan-werritty%28b07931dd-f8ea-4bec-9b52-2b024637a79a%29.html
Carry on, conspiracists.
Not that I think being an undergrad at St. Andrews is likely to influence your politics one jot. Drinking and shouting are more serious pursuits.
…sorry, Grandma’s priceless collection. Burrell seems to have got most of Mum’s assets…
BTW, where’s Werrity? His latest discoverable address is in Chapter Street, London, SW1. Doesn’t seem to be a maildrop, either. Full address can be found on searching up-to-date business directories, if you’re that interested. But here’s the des. res.
http://li.zoocdn.com/0cac6d47f05b04d0cdaff71fbfd3ba44cd67e1a7_645_430.jpg
I think most of the hoi polloi are, against their own interests, bored to death by constitutional stuff.
What the Grauniad needs is a tangible smoking gun showing royal lobbying/access influenced an actual piece of legislation. THEN people might start getting annoyed. I think they’re doing rather half-arsed journalism on it to be honest. The FOI stuff should be the beginning of their investigation, not the end of it.
The Royals are supposed to be impartial but support illegal wars and tax evasion. Vunerable people being sanctioned and starved. The Tory cousins use them. Their behaviour is kept secret under the Offical Secrets Act. They are well rewarded for the duplicity and fraud. £Million/Billion of public money for illegal wars, banking fraud, tax evasion to protect the privileges. The over consuming hypocrites. Over indulgence can bring unexpected consequences.
These arrangements have been in place for some while and only now are making the Oligarch Owned Media headlines. clearly in our “transparent” system of government, the news of an actuality making its way into the public domain after only seventy or so years later shows the degrees of transparency of the constructs that bends the light of the truth and sends it around the garden of murky and sinister secretiveness for a period of seventy years.
Although the question remains why has this now come to light? Who is having a go at the oldest apprentice who has been training for a job that seems he will never ever get to do?
Furthermore, whilst we have found this little gem we also find that our “ministers” in the cabinet are subject to the same mushroom treatment as the rest of us, and these are not shown the papers too! Also it would appear that when they meet in the cabinet they are not allowed to make notes or to have pen and paper handy, or to dare to make any recording of the proceedings.
Transparency international eat your heart out, how very transparent can anyone be?
So far as fascism goes, we are not a fascist society, because we do not wear jackboots, have no mustaches, do not click our heels at the sight of any filly/tottie/bint/lady and keep a glass of champagne in our hands at all times!!!! so there is the proof for all those skeptics!!
Never mind that corporates own everything and charge us extortionate rents in return for Rothschild scrips of ever diminishing values.
I’ve been reading about the terrible sacking of the Garden of Perfect Brightness in Peking by forces commanded by Lord Elgin during the Opium Wars. Thousands of priceless works of art – statues, paintings, antique porcelain etc were looted and ended up in various English country houses and regimental museums. I understand that in the museums these days they are quite vague about the provenance on the labels they attach. Partly because the Chinese want the stuff back. The Royals are not so squeamish. Apparently they have a Chinese painting of a dog that they refer to affectionately as ‘Looty’. Oh my sides!
Monarchy aside, the real problem is that with current Labour leadership we are very likely going to end up with Tory government for another 9 years? Hard pill to swallow but odds are very strong.
The irony is that with what has happened recently (and accidentally) that House of Lords (full of unelected fatcats) stopped one of the most rightwing legislation which has been passed (with no major issues) via House of Commonts (full of elected fatcats). Go figure what is better.
Craig.
Just flagging up Cato’s post on the ‘BBC bias’ thread in case you miss it.
“St Andrews University, that strange foreign neo-con enclave perched on the Neuk of Fife”
Good grief, nobody expects “The University Wars”.
I look forward to Craig Murray publishing his approved list of Universities, as would probably, those Scots who went, including Alex Salmond, are at, or are hopeful of going to St Andrews University, with at least 50% of students there being from Scotland.
The part I found puzzling about the coverage is some of the furious denials that this is all part of how the royal family is engaged in lobbying on behalf of the country (I say country, but of course I mean certain interests).
I mean, whatever your opinion about the monarchy getting private memos etc, there surely is no argument that they lobby on behalf of Britain – whether for sporting events or commercial contracts or general elbow-greasing. Or are really people trying to pretend this doesn’t happen?
As an Edinburgh alumni, I usually enjoy the odd joke at the expense of St Andrews. But I’m going to stand up for them here – and suggest that if Prince Willy has some regressive views, his Eton background probably has more to do with it.
Deepgreenpuddock: “The idea that William, with his modest intellectual gifts, has anything to offer on weighty matters, makes a laughing stock of our (un)constitutional process.”
The idea that our present Cabinet members, with their modest intellectual gifts, have anything to offer on weighty matters, makes a laughing stock of our (un)constitutional process.
”…the real problem is that with current Labour leadership we are very likely going to end up with Tory government for another 9 years? Hard pill to swallow but odds are very strong.”
Why would anyone who objects to Corbyn care whether the Tory Blairites, rather than New Labour forms the next government. If Corbyn consolidates his position you can at least look forward to a real opposition, which would be a real change from the “me too, but nastier” oppositions of the recent past.
“Yesterday’s revelation that Prince Charles sees Cabinet Office memoranda denied to most ministers did not spark as much public outrage as might be expected.”
___________________
I wrote a comment on it yesterday but, no one ran with it.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/12/jack-straw-responds-to-alex-salmond-with-blatant-lie/#comments
Still this thread allows me to write another.
According to the Republic website, and I concur, Prince Charles is effectively a minister not attending the cabinet, he’s privy to inside and sensitive information, that could and probably does benefit him and his family in the corporate field.
It is plainly wrong that Charles can lobby on new policy proposals even before the public are aware of the existence of such proposals.
Bevin
“…but nastier” what about nastiest?
as in the US democrat dream team. Hillary Clinton who makes Hillary Benn look like a pipe smoking member of Stop the War coalition same as his father.
Prince Charles is like a floodlight without a PIR. You walk past it but it doesn’t come on. The switch is located elsewhere.
“Prince Charles is like a floodlight without a PIR. You walk past it but it doesn’t come on. The switch is located elsewhere.”
______________
Giyane, I’m not adverse to a good royalty joke, so here goes.
“Prince Charles must have upset the Mafia. He wakes up every morning with a horse’s head on his pillow.”
Seems like a real hodge-podge to me where Prince Charles, the heir to the Throne, gets to see Cabinet documents as if he is some kind of neo con plotter, Edward VIII is made the fallguy, as usual, for what others, especially future Queen Consort Elizabeth, were demanding of him, and St.Andrews is trashed for being apparently a fascist factory while nothing is said about what fascism is in today’s world.
“The problem is, of course, that with a monarchy you have no choice what you get.”
Craig has hit the nail on the head. The much-trumpeted present day popularity of “the Monarchy” is nothing of the sort- it is Queen Elizabeth II who is popular. It’s just that she’s reigned so long that for most people the job is entirely identified with its present incumbent. Likewise the idea of Monarchy being an intrinsic part of “Britishness” shows a shameful ignorance of history. My great-grandad was addressing large anti-monarchy demonstrations in the 1890s, on Plymouth Hoe.
Either the role of monarch is important, in which case its right that Charles should have extensive training for the job including access to the cabinet. But if the job’s important, then mere ancestry- irrespective of any talent- is not a sufficient qualification. Alternatively, the monarch has no real importance- in which case why have them at all? Monarchists want to have their cake and eat it.
The irony is that with what has happened recently (and accidentally) that House of Lords (full of unelected fatcats) stopped one of the most rightwing legislation which has been passed (with no major issues) via House of Commonts (full of elected fatcats). Go figure what is better.
Measures are in hand to prevent that ever happening again, Uzbek. One thing we cannot have is irony.
This just out, as it happens:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-publishes-strathclyde-review
It will now be clearly understood that if the Commons exist only to serve business interests and foreign entrepreneurs, so does everyone else.
Yesindyref2
Absolute nonsense. St Andrews has only 31% of students from Scotland. An astonishing 48% of those Scottish students are from private schools. Only 16% of St Andrews students are from Scottish state schools.
On top of which it has the lowest percentage in the entire UK of all students from low income groups. Even worse than Buckingham, the private university.
It is a bloody disgrace.