No doubt millions of people felt a heartfelt attachment to the Queen, which will be displayed fully in the next few days. But the anachronistic nature of monarchy is also fully on display, in the obvious absurdities and pantomime procedure, with Heralds Pursuivant and Royals buckled with the weight of their unearned medals.
Yesterday some BBC stenographer had to type with a straight face the strapline “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Are Now the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge”, which would even fifty years ago have already been absurd enough to be a line in a Monty Python sketch. Still more absurd is the millions in feudal income that goes with that title, all real money paid by actual ordinary people as feudal dues.
The plans for the Queen’s demise were organised decades ago, and it shows. The BBC, ITV and Channels 4 and even 5 stop all entertainment in favour of pre-prepared sycophancy, as though we still lived in a world where people could not switch over and watch Gordon Ramsay on Blaze instead – and that’s ignoring Netflix, Amazon and the entire internet.
I watched a few minutes of the BBC last night, up until a “royal commentator” said that people were standing outside Buckingham Palace because the nation needed to draw together for physical comfort in its great grief. There were a couple of hundred of them. Broadcasters kept focusing on a dozen bouquets left on a pavement, in a desperate attempt to whip up people to produce more.
I do not doubt this will all work and there will indeed be big crowds and carpets of flowers. Many people felt a great deal of devotion to Elizabeth II, or rather to the extraordinarily sanitised image of her with which they were presented.
I witnessed her at very close quarters working on two state visits which I had a major part in organising, to Poland and to Ghana. She was very dutiful and serious, genuinely anxious to get everything right, and worried by it. She struck me as personally pleasant and kindly. She was not, to be frank, particularly bright and sharp. I was used to working with senior ministers both domestic and foreign and she was not at that level. But then somebody selected purely by accident of birth is unlikely to be so.
Key staff organising a state visit get by tradition a private, individual audience of thank you. They also get honours on the spot. I turned down a LVO (Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order) in Warsaw and a CVO (Commander of …) in Accra. Because of the unique circumstance, I am one of very few people, or possibly the only person, who has ever refused an honour from the Queen and then had a private audience at which she asked why! I must certainly be the only person that happened to twice.
(I had earlier in my career been asked if I would accept an OBE and said no. As with the vast majority of people who refused an honour, I very much doubt the Queen ever knew that had happened.)
Anyway, in my audiences I told the Queen I was both a republican and a Scottish nationalist. I should state in fairness that she was absolutely fine with that, replied very pleasantly and seemed vaguely amused. Instead of the honour, she gave me personal gifts each time – a letter rack made by Viscount Linley, and a silver Armada dish.
I later auctioned the letter rack to raise funds for Julian Assange.
The purpose of that lengthy trip down memory lane is to explain that I found the late Queen to be personally a pleasant and well-motivated person, doing what she believed to be right. We are all shaped by our environment; I would have turned into a much more horrible monarch than she had I been born into it, certainly a great deal more sybaritic (as the rest of her family appear to be).
So there is no personal malice behind my prognostication that the party will be over very soon for the monarchy. It is not only that the institution and pageantry seem ludicrous in the current age; so does its presentation. The BBC is behaving as though we are in the 1950’s, and apparently will do so for many days. The entire notion of a state broadcasting platform is outmoded, and I suspect a lot more people will see that.
29% of the people of the UK want to abolish the monarchy, excluding Don’t Knows; in Scotland that is 43%. In the UK as a whole 18 to 24 year olds are 62% in favour of abolition of the monarchy, excluding Don’t Knows. They will be further alienated by the outlandish current proceedings. Only the loyal will be reinforced – a large section of the population will snigger as the absurd pomposity grows. I found myself yesterday on Twitter urging people to be a bit kinder as the Queen lay dying.
Think seriously on this. 29% of the population want to abolish the monarchy. Think of all the BBC coverage of the monarchy you have seen over the last decade. What percentage do you estimate reflected or gave an airing to republican views? Less than 1%?
Now think of media coverage across all the broadcast and print media.
How often has the media reflected the republican viewpoint of a third of the population? Far, far less than a third of the time. Closer to 0% than 1%. Yes, there are bits of the media that dislike Meghan for being black or are willing to go after Andrew. But the institution of the monarchy itself?
There can be no clearer example than the monarchy of the unrelenting media propaganda by which the Establishment maintains its grip.
The corporate and state media are unanimous in slavish support of monarchy. Thailand has vicious laws protecting its monarchy. We don’t need them; we have the ownership of state and corporate media enforcing the same.
One final thought; I do not expect this will amount to much, but it is fun to speculate. King Charles III has let it be known he intends to attempt to wield more influence on government than his mother. He comes to power at the same moment as a new government under Liz Truss, which is utterly anathema to Charles’ political beliefs.
Charles is a woolly liberal environmentalist with a genuine if superficial attachment to multi-culturalism. He has let it be known he deplores deportations to Rwanda. He is now going to be fitting into his role while government in his name is carried out by crazed right-wing ideologues, who want a massive push to produce more fossil fuels. Could be worth getting in the popcorn.
————————————————-
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
The real sadness is that she didn’t outlive Nicholas Witchell
I think you have something there….
The BBC have announced that “Nicholas Witchell is to be buried alive with the Queen, as is the custom.”*
(*Stolen from Twitter!)
Who are the senior ministers you found to be sharp cookies?
there are bits of the media that dislike Meghan for being black
I don’t think that’s true. She isn’t “black” in any reasonable sense of the word; she chooses to identify as “black” despite having paler skin than a lot of people who identify as “white”. To ordinary “white” people in places like Portugal and Spain, where complexions are generally less pale than the British average, it’s absolutely baffling that anyone would describe her as “black”.
There are commentators who dislike her because she has used her privileged status as “black”, which is fake anyway, to smear other members of the royal family.
I believe her mother is a Black American, so she most definitely is “Black” by the standards sic of the British MSM
Yup, it’s the old “one drop” rule.
In the USA, there never was a “one drop”. Every state that had Blood Law defined strictly how much it needs to be to be considered black, ranging from 1/32 or more (AL and LA) to 1/2 or more (MA and OH).
What a farrago of nonsense, based on an utterly superficial idea.
Roger , no you are wrong. She herself says she has been discriminated against by the British media because of the colour of her skin. It does not matter if she thinks it’s black and you think light brown what matters is that the colour of her skin attracted discrimination from British media; she could not leave U.K. quick enough.
TC:
“… she could not leave U.K. quick enough. “
Indeed – to go to Amerikkka! Good thing there’s no racism over there, eh?
didnt they go to Canada?
I thought it was California, and this appears to confirm it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex
Odd, though – I thought they lost those official titles when they stepped away from the royal family? Not that I’m well up on such things.
PS – Nice avatar you have!
She herself says she has been discriminated against by the British media
The fact that she played the “victim” card proves absolutely nothing. I have a pretty low opinion of the British media in general, but I don’t believe it has “discriminated against” Meghan Merkel on the grounds of her having some fraction of non-European ancestry. Which British newspaper or TV channel is she alleging this of, anyway? Is it just another generalised smear (like her similar comment about the royal family), impossible to disprove because it’s non-specific?
She’s offended the British establishment. You’re right to be in lockstep with its media in expressing fury at her. Any self-respecting man should be.
I still think the main reason she, M.M. is disliked is because she is fake and pushy. Rather than any ancestry or colour discrimination, she has chosen to see lack of deference to her status as racism.
But I once worked with an older white man who was high up in the Hollywood film industry and as a result or maybe by birth reasonable wealthy.
He found his British camera crew not reverent enough and was amazed that although we were all obviously to him from working class backgrounds that we had all earned degrees and enjoyed classical (amongst every other kind) of music.
He was very annoyed to be working with people who, although treating him as the senior experienced head of the team with very well known credits to his name, were not deferential of his status as wealthy. Which was unknown to us. Whilst there is very rigid hierarchy in the film world, it is not usual that you are not allowed to speak to your team leader at all!
We made him feel threatened and he had a meltdown because he had to work with us. In fact we didnt even realise that some of the hangers-on were the producers and because we were not deferential to them in the way they were used to just for being wealthy Wall Street scum (that we did not know about, totally at odds with UK culture) we were sacked. Americans defer to money. That is what she was expecting here as well as the Princess stuff and hoping her offspring would be entitled to be Princes and Princesses.
I still think the main reason she, M.M. is disliked is because she is fake and pushy.
Millions of people are fake and pushy. This is a really good example of finding a particular trait – one which is entirely subjective, with every action and word twisted to support that interpretation – to excuse hostile treatment to someone which is not dished out to people from the “in” group who demonstrate such qualities in equal measure.
Back in the time of slavery and many years thereafter, a person in the US was considered to be black if they had one black grandparent (with all the prejudice and oppression that came with it).
If that proportion was good enough for segregationists back then, then it should be good enough for black people today.
Nope. See my comment above. Also, not all the states had Blood Law, only 19 by 1900.
Didn’t the kids come out ginger? Surely that makes her white. She looks white to me.
Where do you place Ryan Giggs ?
There are plenty of people who have mixed over the last two thousand years. Norman kings married Saxon Princesses.
Roger you win the most Internetty comment of the blog.
I’m really looking forward to the Queen’s funeral, the pomp and ceremony that Britain does so well will be simply magnificent. In fact, I enjoy a royal funeral so much that we should have one every day.
As an American, I can say from a purely disinterested point of view that I know of no one in the world who does ceremony better than the British monarchy. I think public ceremony can be thought of as a form of public art and appreciated as such, whatever one’s political inclinations, and I am a dyed-in-the-wool Berniecrat.
Speaking of wool, does the characterization of the new monarch as a “wooly environmentalist” mean he is woolly headed, i.e., not too bright, or that he prefers natural fibers, organic foods and such?
I think it carries both connotations Mary
Be careful what you wish for.
We may end up nothing more than a republic freeport.
Some may find Mark Galeotti’s piece in the Spectator – “Why even Vladimir Putin has paid tribute to the Queen” – of interest.
Thanks for the link Fwl – an interesting read – Is Anglophilia still strikingly present in Russia? Certainly President Putin adored the British Queen’s stabilizing influence thru tradition and continuity; Nonetheless Putin is moved by Anglophobia, fully aware the subtle, devious great gameplans that spurt from the dark British corridors of power are spewed into the US intelligence citadels, to be fed into the US war machine as muscle and money merge into a sickening, stomach-turning proxy death machine,
There’ll be no change.
For starters, no UK politicians are calling for it. And let’s face it, the politicians we have presently are so poor in terms of quality, they make democracy look overrated and the absurdity of an hereditary monarchy seem like a vaguely plausible proposition for producing the head of state.
“Be careful what you wish for.”
Indeed, there is always the tendency by its supporters to present any change as doing away with the abuses, wrongs and disadvantages of the old system and bringing in new benefits and features with the new. However, it remains possible, nay likely, that the change will do the opposite, preserve all the evil of the old system, whilst introducing more problems with the new. Brexit is a classic and recent example of this and history is littered with others. If we change to a Republic, it could easily happen that all the trappings, powers and prerogatives of the monarchy would be transferred seamlessly to the new elected president. Meanwhile one of the main advantages of the monarchy would be lost, that the monarch is outside party politics, that curse of representative democracy. Ditto the transformation of the House of Lords into an elected Senate. All that would change would be the titles of the senators, if the last reform is anything to go by.
“She was not, to be frank, particularly bright and sharp.”
or perhaps, if she “replied very pleasantly and seemed vaguely amused” and gave you a toast rack when she learned you were a republican Scottish Nationalist she has learned to keep her amusement and her opinions to herself.
Presumably, as a senior civil servant. you had to swear an Oath or attestation of Allegiance to the monarchy. Did you keep your fingers crossed while you took it, or did you decide that the best and most honourable advice and service you could do would be to advise her to abdicate?
I was a senior civil servant and no such oath is required. Like Craig, and many others, I refused honours as a republican and it had little or no impact on my career.
Apparently, Princess Margaret could complete the Times crossword in under half an hour most days, Jim – and as well as not falling far from the tree, the apples also don’t tend to fall too far from each other, although of course there are always exceptions. A documentary about Her Majesty’s life on ITV on Thursday night claimed that her sister’s slightly untimely death was in a large part caused by grief over her star-crossed romance with Group Captain Peter Townsend – and here was me thinking it was pretty much entirely caused by her 60-Chesterfields-a-day habit which she diligently maintained for the best part of fifty years.
Anyway, I wonder if our excellent host’s anecdote about the letter/toast-rack will get shamelessly ripped-off without attribution by Andrew Marr, like he did last year with the story about Prince Philip. Can’t be arsed tuning into his show on LBC to find out. In the words of Morrissey*: if you must write prose or poems [or host TV/radio shows – Ed], the words you use should be your own / don’t plagiarise or take on loan. Can people remember which classic album that particular couplet comes from? (I’ve just realised that I’ve written a paragraph containing the words ‘Morrissey’ & ‘Marr’ where the Marr in question isn’t Johnny; you don’t get too many of those to the about-to-be-redesigned pound these days.)
My condolences to the Royal Family and to Royalists everywhere.
* Not that he can really talk. In interviews, Mark E Smith of The Fall always used to refer to him as ‘Steven’ – never failed to crack me up.
I live in a particularly Tory/Monarchist part of the country and the reasonable and well thought out observations Craig makes would be difficult to make in public unless one enjoys aggressive and pointless arguments.
The figures that Craig quotes of the largely anti monarchist feelings of the young are interesting but we all know what happens when a few years go by, they change their minds. Liz Truss is an authority.
Bob Smith – No that’s not true. Lizz Truss was an imposter, a few years went by and the real Truss was revealed.
“…as though we still lived in a world where people could not switch over and watch Gordon Ramsay on Blaze instead – and that’s ignoring Netflix, Amazon and the entire internet.”
Exactly. Anyone preferring to avoid the coverage has plenty of choice. And those who wish to follow the events are also amply catered for. An ideal situation, I would say.
I would like to be able to put the radio on and hear about something else, just occasionally.
I recommend listening to Noam Chomsky’s and Joe Biden’s phone calls to Jimmy Dore on Youtube.
I hope you weren’t fooled into thinking those were genuine?
> Anyone preferring to avoid the coverage has plenty of choice.
Not if they want to watch real news. Every single news programme has been stretched to two hours, and padded out with tributes and testimonials. It starts at the beginning of the show. There may be a small slot for actual news – you know, what’s been happening in the world and so on. I haven’t been able to tell, because I’m not prepared to sit through two hours of fatuous pageantry.
BTW, I’m not persuaded by the story that Liz was “kindly”. She may or may not have been pleasant in person; but she presided over a mountain of privilege, patronage and power, which she guarded jealously. I consider myself a citizen, not a subject. I do not recognize royal authority. That is, I reject the monarchy, as well as the tribe of liggers and hangers-on, with their titles and palaces.
Why do people put up with it all? Is it because secretly they fatasize about being monarch themselves?
It is worth listening to Boris’ tribute to the Queen in the House today in full. He put it all very well.
The problem is that believing what he said was truly meant or that his utterances were in some indecipherable way for his own personal gain. He’s been such a stranger to the truth for his entire life very few can determine anything he expresses now to be genuine.
Boris believes in one thing, and only one thing: the advancement of Boris. Doubtless he put a lot of effort into his ‘tribute to the Queen’; he still thinks he might be Prime Minister again some day, and making excellent speeches in Parliament helps get Tory MPs on-side.
Americans sending their condolences, and arguing over the proper way to address:
“Not “Her Royal Highness” her honorific was “Her Majesty” why can’t American journalists get that right?
If these guys think hereditary monarchy is such a good idea, pause for a moment and imagine the Trump family being a permanent irremovable fixture, or how about the Bush family, or, if on the right, perhaps the Clintons?
Still keen?
I’ve read a lot which suggests the Bush family has been an immovable fixture in positions very close to the top in the US for going on a century. The Clintons have been a fixture since Bill took up residence in the Governor’s mansion (and the Obamas seem to be following the trend). They can be voted out so another of their ilk can take office, but they don’t go away. And they don’t have to pretend to be politically neutral or ‘above it all’.
> imagine the Trump family being a permanent irremovable fixture
Difference is, the Pres appoints and controls the executive.
Putin sent a very generous and sincere sounding message of condolence to the royal family, and the British public. I heard absolutely no mention of it on the TV and radio coverage, but some commentators on the ‘Twitters’, gutter-press etc. did respond in a very churlish way.
What a shame, we obviously can’t allow a good word to be said about an Official Enemy. Peace has to be brought about by negotiation, and a civil exchange would have been a good opportunity for a starting point. Unless we simply don’t want peace, of course. Naturally, they were falling over themselves to praise Zelensky’s statement.
Incidentally, yesterday’s R4 PM (BBC news at 17:00) said that Russian broadcasts had not bothered mentioning the news of the Queen’s turn for the worse. Which was strange, because a Russian friend told me earlier that day it was all over the media there.
Hello, Putin’s message was covered by the BBC today, conveying Putin’s whole message, and without any comment. I don’t know the UK presenters, so I can’t give you the presenter’s name.
Fair enough, I stand corrected – thank you!
Who cares? Putin was the 1st leader to send W his sympathy and support after 9-11, but this did not dent the West’s sympathy to Chechen terrorists.
I think you’ve made that up; can you substantiate this claim of sympathy for Chechen terrorrists? Like, for example, a link to a newspaper article?
Yes, all very well, Craig, you are most emphatically not a monarchist. Fine. But the idea that a republic would necessarily and apparently unarguably be any better than what we have now is, I suggest, somewhat naive. The failures we are suffering now do not reside in the Monarchy per se, but in Parliament’s own inability presently to reform itself, busy digging for itself democracy’s grave, when Parliament and our political system is and should be perfectly capable of doing this under a monarchy, as it has done for hundreds of years, often under the duress of public pressure and discontent, true, but that’s how it also works in a republic. That in itself is not an argument for a monarchy, but it is equally not an argument for a republic.
I would also point out that England tried a form of republicanism in 1650, a hundred and forty years before France tried the same thing. The experience in England was so miserable, that the experiment lasted a mere eleven years, since when an English, now British, form of a developing more democratic rule has generally served the nation pretty well in comparison with most other nations.
If some of the fabric of the house is rotting, you attempt to repair the rot first, and try to avoid demolishing the whole house. I know this opinion will unlikely be echoed by anyone else posting to this site, but this is a free country, still, even under King Charles III.
Reforms that could perfectly well take place under King Charles III are: proportional representation in Westminster; a redesign of the debating chamber of the House of Commons (blame Winston Churchill for its inadequacies following its repair after it was bombed in WW2); a reform of the House of Lords including an elected membership from the best expertise in all facets of life in this country, and reducing its size to say 200; the public funding of political parties and the banning of anything other than personal donations less than £10; much greater transparency in all government spheres; tax reform, including a wealth tax; an abandonment of a nuclear capability; the reform of our forces to a purely defensive force; the disbandment of NATO and the institution of a European-wide security agreement that includes Russia; and an urgent emphasis on global warming and renewable energy and de-privatisation of the UK’s energy, water and transport sectors etc. etc.. The power of the Monarchy to prevent any of these things is pretty feeble, in reality, and any suggestion that the Monarchy that we have in the UK does have this power is, frankly, a bit absurd.
Cheers.
The BBC reported Charles as saying he isn’t going to meddle in politics. But he’s got a reputation for fastidiously scrutinising the detail of govt legislation that affected his interests, revealed in the so-called ‘black spider memos’ to ministers guardian court case.
By all accounts the Queen played a rather passive role at her weekly audiences with PMs, that former leaders recall fondly as her ‘wise counsel’ – possibly code for she didn’t interject or throw up any obstacles to our legislative programme. I can’t believe the Truss idiotic agenda for the environmentally destructive, discredited fracking will go down well with Charles, a committed environmentalist and friend of Jonathon Porritt – known for his advocacy of the Green Party. If Charles refuses Royal Assent things could get interesting.
Are you confusing royal assent with queen’s consent? The late monarch and the guy who’s now the monarch when he was “prince” both refused to consent to at least bits of many government bills. A government bill doesn’t even get introduced to the Commons unless it receives queen’s consent or prince’s consent, or both, if there is any chance that it might affect either of those jokers’ financial interests. The ludicrous line is that they only refuse consent on ministers’ advice. WTF is the point of the government drafting a bill, going through that whole process, and then advising the monarch or “prince” to withhold consent from it? There’s no point in that whatsoever. They have also interfered with intended legislation other than through the consent process. The exact number of times that consent has been withheld is being kept secret, but it is known that it was withheld many times during the late monarch’s reign. The other point is what do you think the Privy Council Office is for? To coordinate between government departments? Well there’s already a department that’s tasked with that, called the Cabinet Office.
As I understood it, King or Queen’s consent (also Prince’s consent) only relates to legislation that directly affects their interests. Assent is required for all legislation to become an Act, so in theory the monarch’s objections could be ignored up to that point in the passage of a bill.
The Guardian did report that pressure from the royal family led government ministers to enforce a blanket ban on the disclosure of Prince Charles’s lobbying campaigns. They made them exempt from FoI requests.
For an in-depth study of these proceedings I’d recommend Norman Baker’s … And What Do You Do?: What the Royal Family don’t want you to know. It sets out very well just how the Monarch and Prince of Wales can, and do, intervene in laws which can affect them and their interests.
Shardlake
Spike Milligan, in his WW2 memoirs, recalls an incident in North Africa when Churchill came through the lines (“This is the password – don’t shoot him!”) to ‘meet the lads’. On being introduced and asked “What do you do, Gunner Milligan?”, he replied “I do my best, sir”. There was a brief pause while Churchill considered the merits of the answer before he replied “Carry on, Gunner Milligan”.
I have used this on the police several times when asked “What are you doing?” and the reaction is priceless.
The concept of royalty is absurd and only supported by children or idiots. There’s around 150 republic countries in the world, around 40 with royalty. I really suggest you grow up into the 21st century.
Holland has a Royal Family, we currently have a King.
His role is entirely perfunctory, with no actual powers whatsoever, and fulfills a decorative, occasionally diplomatique role only. Many grumble about the expense (running above a €million a year!), but the King’s day holiday (with the relaxation of some laws for the day) is always welcomed.
There is no interference with the democratic process, and no particular need to abolish them in Holland.
they have a superior bloodline so are naturally at the top of society. that is the ultimate rationale of royalist bootlickers.
The alternative, an ability to succeed in the dirty world of politics, isn’t a great recommendation for a head of state either.
How many more times, England has been a republic since 1688.
England is neither a republic nor a democracy; it has no system of government of its own. The “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 was a coup, and resulted in the replacement of King James II with William ‘n’ Mary as monarch of the United Kingdom. It’s rather perverse to refer to the UK as a republic.
“The power of the Monarchy to prevent any of these things is pretty feeble”
— John Monro
Only if you ignore a few elephants in the room and stop viewing the crown as tat for tourists.
When you add up all those who swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch you find a large body of people, who together have a very large fist. Armed forces and police are top of the list.
You then have the judges who sit in crown courts. Their historical role was to represent the monarch in administering laws. Modified somewhat I’ll grant you, but they swear loyalty to the crown, not to the sovereign authority of an elected parliament.
As to parliament, they also swear an oath to the crown, not to the citizens of this country who put them there. Most areas of British civic and civil society take oaths of one sort or the other, no matter what country they are in.
As far as I am concerned we the citizens are the sovereign power. It is the job of the powers behind the throne to keep us in our place and nip in the bud anything that threatens their ruling position.
I look forward to the day when, we the citizens, put them the people, in the dustbin of history and establish a republic… or even republicS…_
And anyone else wanting to join the club are controlled by the Gong system. How many editors and journalists have taken their gongs and awards !
John Monro (9/9, 19.11): that’s a pretty good shopping list. Thank you.
Downgrading, or abolishing, the monarchy will require a new constitution, and that is a very good reason for doing so. We are stuck in a ridiculous time warp of obsequiousness which, more importantly, props an entire hierarchy of privilege, wealth and power, based on inheritance, land and property. We have also seen how our archaic constitution is not worth the paper it is not printed on, and rogues like Johnson, in concert with billionaires, oligarchs and very nasty thinktanks can take advantage of its ad hoc, customary set of guidelines to further skew the system in their favour, ignore democracy, parliament and any checks and balances which we thought existed. They also use such lax regulatory powers to attack the courts, human rights, trade unions, decent journailsts and anyone who speaks up in opposition.
A new, modern constitution, with proper oversight, separation of powers and an actual democratic electoral system, not beholden to the Crown, would make an enormous and long overdue difference to this country and its future. That is why a complete rethinking of the entire tottering structure would the best legacy the Queen’s exit would grant the UK. I do agree with Craig that Elizabeth was an important symbol for many people in post-war UK, and deserves some credit for her service to an ideal long tarnished. But that era, and its symbols, are over.
maybe that constitution could even be written
but who is going to write it if not the rogues, billionaires, oligarchs or nasty think-tanks?
cross party maybe god forbid a pool of citizens perhaps experts in various fields
Can anybody present a plausible scenario where the queen didn’t know about Jimmy Saville’s behaviour?
Yes.
She didn’t ask, she wasn’t told.
Three wise monkeys…_
I have a bridge I think you may be interested in …
London Bridge has fallen down and plausible deniability stayed with it till the end.
Prince Andrew is eighth in line to the throne.
History on the other hand is very much alive, the truth always outs…_
The death of the Queen is a serious matter for those in charge.
The people the BBC fondly refer to are not numerous and as always when they talk about ‘the people’ they usually mean that the people are like themselves.
The Queen is more respected as a person/representative and she was viewed as dutiful and diplomatic unlike Johnson, Cameron and Truss, whereas the ‘Monarchy’ is seen differently.
The Soloman Islands are going to allow the Chinese to build a base, and the old Commonwealth was falling to pieces before her death.
Things will be different from here on in: King Charles will not be as respected as the Queen.
There won’t be full-on Republicanism neither, just like there will not be a Revolution, but the tide is ebbing away for all the ex-Colonial countries (it is the same here in France in what’s called The Mahgreb).
The colonialists are being replaced by the Chinese and their ‘Win – Win’ trade deals as opposed to the colonialist win – lose trade deals.
To get respect you have to earn it by proof of your words by action and the West has been all words and no action so the poorer parts of the world see that they have nothing to lose by parting from their historical enslavers; they have nothing to lose they think.
This is what is animating the US and the West in general – this why the proxy war in Ukraine is in motion.
The bad news for the gas/oil-starved West is that as long as the US wants to continue the war then the price to pay is landed not only on the Ukranians and others but the citizens and subjects of geographical Europe.
The US is paying the least price in the conflict.
The West is paying in inflationary prices for the goods/commodities that the sanctions have produced.
That price will become unbearable and it will be necessary to lift sanctions on Russia in the EU.
Anything else would be suicide – particularly for Germany: no German economic growth = no EU.
The British monarchy is an affront to democracy. It is a vestige of tyranny, a grand monument to hierarchy and plunder. As Irish socialist James Connolly wrote in 1911, the royals are for the other despots in society, the capitalists and landlords – not for the working class.
https://jacobin.com/2022/09/james-connolly-british-monarchy-democracy-king-george-royal-family
As I keep pointing out, England has been a republic since 1688. The Windsor crime family are the most prolific dole scroungers in history.
I think this article could not have been written any better. I too am an “anti-monarchist” if I can be allowed to put you in that group. However I have developed a great respect for QE2. Not for her consistent and belligerent support for western european hegemony over the world but for her work in restoring and rebuilding the British Commonwealth of Nations. I see the commonwealth as the best example of multicultural cooperation in the world today, despite its flaws. It is what the UN should be.
This article, Jonathan Cook’s and Jeremy Corbyn’s message of condolence are all helping me to keep sane. Otherwise with a self-imposed media blackout, the current cancel culture and wandering with the dog deserted streets it feels as if lockdown was just a dress rehearsal for this event.
Rothermere press in particular seems to daily big up the Cambridge’s, and has been doing so for a good few years. Now, I put this down to tedious royal sycophancy alone…but!
Given what Craig writes about the potential King vs Government conflict, perhaps I missed that it also creates the window of opportunity for a forced abdication (1937 style) ‘should need arise’. Governments are extremely precious about sharing power, and I really can’t see they would be interested in courting Charles Windsor should he begin to ‘cut up rough’ in the next couple of years.
Feudal dues paid by residents of Cornwall? Is that in addition to taxes?
I have never understood why, when the Queen is one of the richest people in the world, she got yearly payments from British taxpayers in the millions, to support herself and her family. Not to mention subsidies for her security, and upkeep on her houses and grounds.
If Charles is planning to “slim down the Royals,” does that mean getting less money from taxpayers, or does it mean the same amount of money, shared among fewer people?
First up, taxes don’t *fund* spending, so the Civil List isn’t funded by taxpayers, it’s funded, as is everything else, by govt spending the requisite money into existence, following a vote in Parliament on the annual Budget. Taxes just hoover up excess currency at each transaction, mainly to prevent inflation.
Secondly, it’s not as if the Civil List is paid into the Royal recipients’ pockets; it’s for the expenses they incur as part of their “duties”; the work they carry out in their respective roles.
Most of that money will go towards the production and provision of goods and services pursuant to those activities, creating additional transactions and jobs in the process.
That may well not be the optimum use of public money, of course, and there are far more worthy causes, but it’s not as if abolishing it would mean that that spending would necessarily go elsewhere; or that the Civil List somehow prevents that money being allocated to other more deserving departments.
The UK gov can do both if the real resources are there, and I doubt that there are many teachers, care workers, doctors or nurses who are being diverted from better use serving the public by Civil List purchasing, so real resources aren’t being taken from better causes.
The money spent on the Civil List is irrelevant; the govt isn’t financially constrained, it’s real resource-constrained, almost all the spending will go to workers and companies supplying the various households.
Any and all public spending is a good thing (apart from arms spending, on moral grounds!), even if it’s not as usefully targeted as it could and should be, but even people who restore antiques, provide catering, or repair stagecoaches need to make a living!
Taxes imposed on all the various transactions will return the initial spend back to the exchequer in due course anyway, so there’s no real need to worry about it.
Yes, the whole royal circus is preposterous, outdated and ruritanian, but maintaining a presidency would be no less expensive, and involve exactly the same degree of luxury provision in the face of appalling poverty and deprivation elsewhere in the country, as does the Civil List.
that will be news to the irish. please provide your figures.
Dear zoot,
The Sovereign Grant is £86m, but you need to ask yourself, **what is it spent on**?
The money does not stop at first use; It’s spent on the running of the households and functional activities of the various royals – which means that it’s used for purchasing goods and services from many organisations, companies, and individuals, thereby stimulating economic activity and employment.
I’d be the first to agree that it may absolutely not be the most useful way of spending public money – but as long as it’s not sucking away more useful workers (like nurses, doctors, teachers, care workers…) or other useful real resources, *all* public spending is good – it’s how we get our money!
I’d be just as happy to see it spent on a President’s office – but for as long as that money is not being diverted from any other departmental spending, or essential workers purloined by the Sovereign Grant, then it’s really neither here nor there.
“maintaining a presidency would be no less expensive, and involve exactly the same degree of luxury”.
Ridiculous. The US presidency might, though I doubt it. The German presidency definitely doesn’t. As Glenn_nl tells us above, even among monarchies, the Dutch only costs a million a year. It’s the gross over-expenditure and luxury of the UK monarchy which is the problem. And a German (or Irish) style presidency which is the solution.
Why would you only want to spend £1m of public money into the economy when you can spend £86m?
In the UK, it’s not coming out of anyone’s pocket, and it’s not going into the pockets of the members of the royal family (or possible future president).
Ireland and Netherlands are different from the UK; as users of the euro, they do not and cannot create their own currency, so there is likely to be more budgetary pressure.
Actually the cost of the Dutch royal family is €48m, the highest in Europe.
https://nltimes.nl/2021/09/21/dutch-royal-family-costs-rise-eu48-million-kings-personal-salary-tops-eu1-million
The cost of the Irish presidency is €4.8m. That’s more or less proportionate to the UK’s Sovereign Grant, if you take into account population size.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40729734.html
british royals receive over £100 million of public funds every year — despite the british sovereign being a multi billionaire and the largest landowner on earth.
but perhaps these people are indeed the bargain you insist given britain’s unelected “lords” receive £120 million of public funds every year.
Much of the money that the Royal Family receives is money from their own possessions and investments, like any rich family. If the monarchy was abolished, the family would presumably hold onto those possessions and investments as part of their personal worth, although I am sure that there are many republicans who would like to see them robbed of everything and reduced to penury. Thus the “cost” to the country of a president would be much less, but the gain to the country in making the change would be minimal without much expropriation. In any case, if the wealth of the Royal family was expropriated and sold by the government, it is very unlikely that it would be spent on anything that benefited the people.
MrS
“In the UK, it’s not coming out of anyone’s pocket, and it’s not going into the pockets of the members of the royal family (or possible future president).
Ireland and Netherlands are different from the UK; as users of the euro, they do not and cannot create their own currency, so there is likely to be more budgetary pressure.”
You have a strange understanding of economics, though I understand well that it’s a certain theory of economics. Creating money is not free, outside of Brexitarian economists’ views, who are now rapidly being proved wrong.
Bayard
“Much of the money that the Royal Family receives is money from their own possessions and investments, like any rich family.”
That’s quite wrong. Their supposed private money is actually pillaged from British people in centuries past, when the autocratic king was free to seize property of private subjects, even if not strictly legal to do so.
“Their supposed private money is actually pillaged from British people in centuries past, when the autocratic king was free to seize property of private subjects, even if not strictly legal to do so.”
a) That is true about practically anyone with large amounts of inherited wealth and
b) the opposite is true, in the past all property belonged to the state, i.e. the monarch. Gradually, over the centuries, most of this has passed into private hands, from whom sometimes, but rarely, it was expropriated back. The idea that all the property in Britain once belonged to the people is a complete myth.
Dear Laguerre,
Eurozone countries do not create their own currencies; this is done by the ECB – the nations in the EZ are therefore, like Wales, Scotland, or local councils, currency “users”, and are financially constrained by the ECB and EU treaties (esp the SGP).
The UK (like the US, Aus, Japan, China etc) is the monopoly “creator” of its sovereign, free-floating currency and so is financially unconstrained (the spending constraint being *real* resources, and not the availability of sterling currency, which is unlimited).
This was also the case whilst the UK was an EU member, so there’s nothing Brexity about it; although the one main benefit of Brexit, AFAIAC, is that the danger of the UK ever joining the eurozone (as Blair wanted, and Brown opposed) has now passed!
Fortunately, the Excessive Deficit Procedure of the SGP was only ever advisory as far as the UK was concerned (and even the ECB has now had to suspend it of course, because it was always an idiotic idea!)
Bayard
“the opposite is true, in the past all property belonged to the state, i.e. the monarch. Gradually, over the centuries, most of this has passed into private hands, from whom sometimes, but rarely, it was expropriated back. The idea that all the property in Britain once belonged to the people is a complete myth.”
That was a theory propagated by royalty, in their own interests. It could not be enforced. Practical ownership in medieval times was often communal, as the village shared its lands. When the ownership could be enforced, through centralisation of the state, that was when the great pillage began, in early modern times. The most famous case was the Enclosures in Scotland. But the pillaging of the monasteries under Henry VIII was another case of mass diversion of wealth into royal hands.
“That was a theory propagated by royalty, in their own interests. It could not be enforced. Practical ownership in medieval times was often communal, as the village shared its lands.”
It didn’t need to be enforced, everyone accepted it as the way that things were. You are making the common mistake of looking at the past as if everything as the same as it is now, except a few details like funny clothing and speech. People thought differently then, they had different assumptions and prejudices. Ownership wasn’t communal, ownership, to the extent that it existed at all, was vested in the lord of the manor, but even he wasn’t free to buy or sell land without permission. The enclosures did not deprive the commoners of their land, it deprived them of the right to use land that belonged to someone else, usually the same lord of the manor as had owned everything else in the past.
Mr Shigemitsu, it’s always a relief to read your common-sense analyses. Thank you!
@TS. My guess is it will be an increased amount from the taxpayers shared among fewer people.
“Feudal dues paid by residents of Cornwall? Is that in addition to taxes?”
I think Craig is referring, with some hyperbole, to the rents received from the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duke of Cornwall being the Prince of Wales.
When William the Conqueror arrived in England he claimed it all. Every single acre. That’s why he spent 10 years harrying the north
Basically killing and raping and stealing it all. By the Time of Edward IV, he owned a fifth of the landmass of England. The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are the remnants of that land grab.
That’s why the Domesday book was brought into being.
Jersey and The Channel Islands still belong to the Crown as Royal Peculiars.
If William the conqueror had a thousand year plan, we’re not party to it.
At one point in proceedings the King of the day I forget which one was so in debt that Parliament turned round and said we’ll take your lands and give you an income.
And that is how the Duchy of Lancaster got under government control. And the civil list or sovereign grant was born.
History usually has your answers.
One of the head of state’s functionary titles is “Defender of the Faith”
The Protestant faith, that is.
RT posts a Twitter feed of a Dublin Team celebrating the recently- deceased incumbent, which at time of posting has surprisingly for me at least, 8.7 million views!
Maybe we need a great societal healer like JB in these sceptered isles?
https://www.rt.com/sport/562497-shamrock-rovers-queen-elizabeth-chant/
That didn’t strike me as particularly offensive. Now pumping her corpse full of formaldehyde and putting it on public display for a week like a freakshow exhibit, that’s offensive and disrespectful. Still, it’s good for the brand and business so I guess that’s what matters.
“One of the head of state’s functionary titles is “Defender of the Faith”. The Protestant faith, that is.”
Henry VIII was awarded the title “Fides Defensor” by the Pope, and the Pope’s Catholicism is a byword.
Fidei defensor
What I’ve observed from the various vox pops, is that they mostly fall into 3 categories. The first is those who seem to have been conscripted into grief, acting in a way which has been demanded of them by the state. The second is those genuinely grieving, out of some misty-eyed sentiments about what the monarchy represents (sentiments ingrained by decades of carefully orchestrated propaganda). The third, is those very well treated by the socioeconomic status quo, affluent middle class types, who see in the monarch’s death, a rocking of the boat which disturbs them. It’s not grief they are expressing, but anxiety, because all the certainties of the past are crumbling, as bit by bit they are priced out of the trappings of middle class life. They can’t bring themselves to address the elephant in the room (neoliberal capitalism) and so channel their anxieties into socially acceptable outpourings.
“Charles is a woolly liberal environmentalist”
Two of his primary life coaches were Lord Mountbatten and Sir Jimmy Savile. There should be little surprise that his younger brother gravitated towards a figure like Jeffrey Epstein.
I spilled my dutch apple cake when listening to the BBC’s Mr. Evans and John Simpson opining as to why China and Russia had not mentioned the queens passing. Steph my wife shouted at the radio, which is not her normal behaviour, that ‘you should read RT, they reported that she was not well that afternoon’.
We are seeing politicians such as Izzy whizz dizzy Lizzie proclaiming that she held her hand last at Ballmoral, using this long planned event to puff up herself, painting a picture of being the last chosen PM by the last queen.
Scores of commentators re calling their past experiences with emphasis on their achievements in doing so.
We went into Norwich which had City hall cut off traffic with the help of two massive recovery vehicles shutting the road on either end. There was sign ‘please queue here to sign the book of condolences’, with a red………….. marking were people should stand as 96 gongs of St. Peter Mancroft chimed.
Except, there was no queue, whilst going round the market, I kept an eye on City Hall but could not see anyone queue or step inside City Hall to sign their condolence. The BBC, bar the non stop commenting of past events and what Charles 3 is going to do, seem to use this passing of HMQ to have a little break from commenting on the machinations of the newly elected East Anglian clique of MP’s in cabinet.
the costs involved in printing new notes and changing all that ‘needs’ changing from a female to a male monarch should be born out of the opulent and vile profits made by the Crown Estates that hire out the Irish Seabed for energy companies to exploit, damaging more environs other species use as their habitat.
Meanwhile in Scotland, a couple of headlines from the Aberdeen Press and Journal:
“National Federation of Fish Friers oust Highland chip shop that celebrated Queen’s death by popping champagne”
and, featuring a picture of a couple watchful bobbies sporting military rifles (one of whom might identify as female, mind you):
“Queen’s death triggers enormous police operation across Scotland”
Does make ye wonder never, if 1st April came early, or maybe late?
john.
Ah, yes, I read the fish and chip shop story earlier today, I wonder if Kevin Bridges will soon be ostricised or cancelled as well, he too cracked a joke (as comedians do) about the queen.
Can the new king ‘pardon’ or set free Julian Assange?
“crazed right-wing ideologues, who want a massive push to produce more fossil fuels”
Yes just crazy . Far better to spend 150 billion to stop people freezing or maybe worrying that people will stop paying their bills.
Energy bills have already doubled since April. Many can not afford them. It could be another poll tax moment they want to avoid.
How will the 150 billion be paid for? Will they raise the retirement age again?
But we had to close the coal mines and quarries, the coal and gas power stations. Stop exploring for oil.
To save the planet. Far better to spend billions on wind and solar farms that in winter can produce as little as eight percent of our energy needs. Liz Truss says she is committed to Net Zero by 2050. But Nets have lots of holes in them as do the Net Zero policies.
If there were verbs ‘to King’ and ‘to Queen’ what would these verbs mean? Until we can answer that question, I don’t think that we have an adequate understanding to form an opinion on Monarchy or Republicanism.
I appeal today Saturday 10th September 2022 directly to King Charles to change the specious honours system to allow for knighthoods and appointments to be removed.
Such revolution will grant public opinion to call for stripping the honour from war criminals such as Sir tony Blair.
Moreover more than one million people have signed a petition to have former prime minister Sir Tony Blair’s knighthood “rescinded”. –
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/tony-blair-petition-rejected-parliament-22685505.amp?int_source=taboola&int_medium=display&int_campaign=organic
Sir Blair had been appointed by the Queen a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, the oldest and most senior British Order of Chivalry.
The Change.org petition which aims to strip the former prime minister of his appointment reached one million signatures on Friday.
A statement accompanying the petition said:
“Tony Blair caused irreparable damage to both the constitution of the United Kingdom and to the very fabric of the nation’s society.
I might add the illegal war that smashed Iraq in 2003 brought about thousands of Iraqi children maimed, mutilated, crippled and handicapped despite a campaign to supply artificial limbs fabricated from wood. The plight of Iraq today where death lurks at every corner remains a token to the apathy, mercilessness, hatred and disdain cascaded from the United Kingdom and those that rule her.
The three main countries in Scandinavia, plus Spain, Netherlands and Belgium remain monarchist parliamentary democracies without tearing their own hearts out over the Republicanism question. They see something which many do not. Royal families in the UK have historically shown a tendency towards the sybaritic. I see the weaknesses of royal families as clearly as anyone else. Most monarchists will have been as disgusted by Andrew. But consider the alternative. Warmonger Dubya Bush as Head of State? Senile and rambling Biden as Head of State? There surely has to be something or somebody above and separate from these incompetent, vile and murderous creatures, and a monarchy is the better of the two alternatives. Not perfect, but preferable.
Dave Reckonin.
Interesting comment Dave, however, Queen Elizabeth reigned over many British colonies that were taken by force or had already been subsumed by the British empire. The colonists in most part were kept in check via laws and violence, and the lands were asset stripped, any uprisings were brutally put down.
A head of state such as Biden or Bush, Cameron and of course Blair can be, and are, removed by the public; the likes of Queen Elizabeth and her brood ride the UK gravy train all their lives, and there’s very little the public can do to remove these unelected people from their very comfortable positions.
“A head of state such as Biden or Bush, Cameron and of course Blair can be, and are, removed by the public;”
That is assuming, of course, that the monarch is replaced by an elected head of state. Going by the example of the reform of the upper chamber of Parliament, that is not a given. The president could be appointed.
Appointment of a ceremonial president would be dangerous. Imagine who Johnson would appoint.
Exactly, that is a good reason for the head of state not to be appointed, but not any sort of reason why having an appointed head of state might not happen.
@Dave Reckonin
That’s not the real choice though.
You’re seemingly thinking purely in terms of a French or US style Executive Presidency. Ideally we’d copy the German or Irish model – that of a Ceremonial Presidency along with a written constitution under a federalised UK giving Holyrood-type power back to the English regions. More people live in Yorkshire than Scotland, so why shouldn’t that be the case?
A ceremonial Presidency with v.limited power wouldn’t interest the likes of Blair et al, you’d probably end up with someone like David Attenborough or Marcus Rashford. Or someone who has shown true heroism or whose altruism is unquestioned. And what would be wrong with that?
At the moment we have a PM with near autocratic levels of power and no real formal checks and balances, beyond that which PM and his/her security services chiefs’ conscience permits. The reason Westminster doesn’t want a written constitution codifying things and delimiting their boundaries & behaviour is pretty obvious. At the moment the UK’s unwritten constitution allows all sorts of shenanigans.
“Ideally we’d copy the German or Irish model – “
History suggests that, if there was change, the result would be very far from the ideal. Look at Brexit.
Funnily enough the German constitution and its presidency was imposed by the western allies after the war. It would have been wonderful if they, in their effort to impose western liberal democracy on Europe, had also imposed it on less-than-democratic Britain.
> Look at Brexit.
You keep using phrases like that, presumably appealling to the well-known fact that “Brexit was a bad thing”. I’m afraid it weakens your argument; most people supported Brexit, and many still don’t agree that it was a bad thing.
People talk about Blair or Branson as a warning against having an elected head of state for a future British republic, but, sadly, the one perfect candidate who would have won a British presidential election hands down, with almost unanimous support across the country, has just passed away, aged 96.
Perhaps Harry should give it a go?