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.
My only recollection of Ms Markle was her appearance as a law enforcement officer in a single episode of the brilliant, weird-science series Fringe. (John Noble, aka Denethor, as the mad scientist, is outstanding. Also Leonard Nimoy.)
It’s not that I hate the aristocracy . . . oh wait, yes it is. They should all be executed, every single one that claims one drop of aristocratic blood.
‘The BBC, ITV and Channels 4 and even 5 stop all entertainment in favour of pre-prepared sycophancy.’
In the absence of large numbers of mourners/ well wishers rhey’ve resorted to pretending a Trafalgar Square protest against police murdering a black man is crowds of monarchists..
https://mobile.twitter.com/hiyol92/status/1568588272418553856
Eventually they’re going go back to whining about RT and ‘Chinese media censorship’ without a nanosecond’s pause for self-reflection.
Meantime .. how are they going to stop Sir being Sir in full view of the world?
https://mobile.twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1568582387126124544
A prime example of how the failing monarchy is propped up by the media.
https://mobile.twitter.com/loyih92/status/1568588272418553856
– or a prime example of a failing media being propped up by the monarchy circus
And these people like to lecture everyone on the twin terrors of misinformation and disinformation.
They even have a special series: Into The Greyzone, highlighting the alleged risk. The Guardian claimed Sky News Australia is a global hub for climate misinformation.
Goose, this clip says it all really, the needs of the one, far outweighs the needs of the many. Listen to the words of the presenter on fuel bills, and how the queen health comes first.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-her-legacy-21st-century-britain-never-looked-so-medieval/281898/
The BBC’s coverage is becoming increasingly preposterous. It’s embarrassingly fawning – are they secretly in competition with North Korea’s KCTV ? It’s so extremely slavish, it’s actually bordering on satire. seriously, is someone at the BBC taking the p..?
At this rate they’ll be declaring she was the Second Coming of Christ in a few days, or is now an angel in the sky. Do these people realise most of the nation have had grandparents die, and not made anything like this fuss ourselves, by rapidly getting on with things?
The more they ladle it on for the retarded, insecure, barking mad, utterly nasty pillock of a king with his “sacred duty”, the bigger the bang will be when it all comes crashing down. Could happen within days. I hope it does.
Did you see how he told Harry not to bring his non-white wife anywhere near Balmoral and also banned Harry from the RAF flight to Aberdeen? As if your son’s wife isn’t part of your family. I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry launches his book very soon. We all know “which royal it was” who had such a big problem with the skin colour of Harry’s children.
By now Harry may well know a thing or two about matters connected with a Fiat Uno and a fake blood sample too – and be ready to reveal them.
It’s undignified in its level of cloying obsequiousness, and what’s more, even as someone who favours a republic, I can tell it’s bad strategy for monarchists – better to leave people wanting more than have neutrals saying, oh my god! turn that crap off!
She learnt to do the royal wave as a kid, so what? Magnificent eh? The treatment is so sickly, sickly sweet, watch it for too long and it’ll leave the viewer needing to book an urgent dental appointment. It’s 1984 level brainwashing, best limited to small doses.
Any honest profile would offer a critique of her legacy, followed a sensible adult debate on our future constitutional arrangements with all the relevant UK parties invited. But we aren’t a grown-up country and this infantilisation is all the UK establishment will offer the people, because they look down their noses at the general population.
Don’t give the BBC any money.
The Daily Mail is particularly nauseating these last couple of days. Peak propaganda a la North Korea.I think theyve paid thousands of trolls to occupy their comments sections.
I have never seen so many ne’er do wells in one room.
And a bit like the Godfather 2 where Michael takes control of things after his father dies then a new broom of ‘Omerta’ kicks in.
Harriet Harmless (ex GLC) was on the TV this morning and her every utterance suggested that no secret soil of the Privvy Councel would ever be disturbed.
Similar to the Mafia – Omerta (as in tell the shcmucks nothing of significance) the future of the Unholy Alliance – Í’m algriht Jack – keep your hands of my stack will continue to apply in the future.
A room full of brigands – pirates – cutpurses and montebanks you could wish never to see.
I’m of Irish decent and the welfare of cows/livestock over human beings sprang to mind just seeing those faces.
It will not last for the simple reason that reality is a bark and it can’t last.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe in Russia the head of state, the President, is selected by a direct vote in which the entire electorate is invited to participate.
This simple device satisfies simultaneously the tenets of democracy and the common need of people for a personality cult, and when combined with a constitution to guarantee justice for the electorate would seem to be a fair model for government. Or not?
@john
“a constitution to guarantee justice for the electorate”??
Very droll.
Who says there’s a ‘common need’ for a personality cult? Such things are dangerous, the object of the cult has to be infallible; unchallengeable. Their inevitable departure can leave a power vacuum.
“Who says there’s a ‘common need’ for a personality cult?”
You are confusing “need” meaning “practical need” with “need” meaning “desire”. With the former meaning, no there is no need and such things are indeed dangerous, but sadly, the latter meaning is the real one, it is a need that manifests itself every time we have a general election, when the media turn it into a gladiatorial contest between the party leaders.
Pears,
Surprised you don’t seem to see that the head of state, i.e. the monarch, in the European constitutional monarchy model, is the object of a perennial personality cult on the part of their subjects?
Although monarchy by no means rivals meritocracy, it can still counterbalance modern idiocracy where people are appointed to the highest positions because they are women, lesbians, colored etc. I never liked Charles but he still is a white male.
Yuri K,
White Royals Matter. Now take a knee…_
The consensus of opinion on here seems to be that, if the UK was to be a republic with an elected head of state, it would be best if that head of state was purely ceremonial, like Germany or Ireland. If, however, we are to have a purely ceremonial head of state, what advantage is there in having an elected one? All that would do would be to introduce party politics somewhere that previously was free of it. We could just as well follow the Dutch model and have a ceremonial hereditary head of state. Nearly all the arguments against the monarchy are those against the monarchy as currently constituted in the UK. There is no need to abolish the monarchy to change that.
You needn’t worry. The entire political and media class has prostrated itself before this “King”. You should be revelling in it all.
Election makes for legitimacy. An appointed head of state is open to a corrupt appointment. Like who would a PM like Johnson choose? Or indeed Truss? If it’s a hereditary appointment, you have all the dangers of an incompetent in the job, as happens with kingship. And who would choose the dynasty? Election is the safest solution.
“Election is the safest solution.”
I would remind you that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Let me quote someone who actually knew something about democracy, Aristotle, “It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election.” There are not very strong arguments for having a hereditary head of state, but one of the strongest is that they are not elected and are free from the corruption and party politics that is an inescapable part of any elective process.
So you’re against democracy. I think I read that was your view before; it’s not the first time. Hitler is quite irrelevant; he was never majority elected; the Nazis were just the largest party, without a majority, and Hindenburg invited him to be a minority chancellor.
So what if Hitler wasn’t majority elected, neither was Theresa May, when she had to rely on the DUP, nor David Cameron, when he had to ally with the Lib Dems. Are you saying that was somehow not democratic?
I’m not against democracy, I’m against this charade called “democracy”, where the People don’t rule, all they get to do is, once every five years, get to chose the people (MPs) who choose the people (ministers) who form part of the executive (the bit of government that actually does the ruling). On top of that, becasue of the party political system, the People don’t even get to choose the candidates from which they choose the people who choose the people etc.
Bayard:
“Nearly all the arguments against the monarchy are those against the monarchy as currently constituted in the UK. There is no need to abolish the monarchy to change that.”
Well, here’s a solid defence of how the monarchy is constituted in the UK, as a constitutional monarchy, and why that arrangement is superior to other European monarchies which are merely symbolic. From a loyal Canadian subject: Jordan Peterson Comments on the Queen’s Passing (YouTube, 14mins)
He compares the constitutional monarchy to presidential systems which are vulnerable to the heady effects of fame and short-term ego trips (illustrated by an anecdote about Donald Trump’s narcissistic power). By contrast, the Queen had known over a dozen prime ministers who had to meet her weekly – and confess their plans. She was a looming presence who could intimidate them into some humility. Quite handy, really, especially with Bojo in nominal charge. (It remains to be seen how the dynamic between Truss and Charlie works out, though – Peterson seems quite pessimistic about that.)
The humility of Bojo? Really – is that the humility that saw him being ousted by his own party?
Did the Queen stop Eden from attacking Egypt? Did the Queen stop Blair taking us into an illegal war? Did the Queen refuse to prorogue Parliament?
Of course the Queen notionally doesn’t have any state executive powers, but she is head of the armed forces, and if she had decided to, she probably could have forced the government – tanks outside No10. It might well have spelt the end of the Monarchy (or the end of Democracy) and her children would then become normal (but rich) citizens of the UK with all the privileges wealth gives them – almost approaching the privileges they have now, but without the tedious cutting of ribbons and meeting the small people.
It is true that we do not know what happens in the weekly meetings between the PM and the Monarch, but have we ever seen any evidence that a PM has changed their minds after such a meeting? Given what we know about King Charles, and the obvious difference to what Truss is proposing – will the King actually read out the Kings Speech containing plans to expand North Sea oil and gas extraction, and opening the land up to fracking? If he has any sincerity surely he should rip it up and refuse, whatever the consequences of such an action may be.
> Nearly all the arguments against the monarchy are those against the monarchy as currently constituted in the UK.
The strongest argument against monarchy is that it infantilises the population, and makes them deferential. Having a neo-feudal hierarchy of wealth and power, defended by the armed forces and police, is demeaning. The habits of deference and forelock-tugging transfers easily to members of HM Government. Deference isn’t a constructive attitude to take to political representatives.
Dear Mr. Murray,
I am glad to learn that a gift from her Majesty was sold to provide funds to Julian Assange’s benefit.
Your speculation on the King’s role in politics is interesting. Popcorn, indeed.
Hopefully proceeds from the sale of the silver Armada dish could be used to fund an advert alongside our hosts books and replace his sons Doune The Rabbit Hole festival appeal.
Put 1300 hours, October the 8th, Palace of Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA, UK, in your diaries please. Hopefully me and Mrs. Digger will see you all there.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1553289290439766017/photo/1
Speculation.
Did Queen Elizabeth know weeks ago that her end was near, and removed herself to Balmoral Castle, where she also knew what was to come. She dissolved PM Boris Johnson’s tenure there, and enacted Liz Truss’s as PM at Balmoral Castle – something the media said that she had never done before.
Watching the media fawn over every inch of the queen’s hearse travelling from Balmoral castle to St Giles cathedral in Edinburgh, with constant close ups of the coffin which is draped in the Scottish William the Lion’s flag. It got me thinking that even near her end the Queen was thinking of improving the royal’s image north of the border and it was no accident that she passed away at Balmoral Castle.
You are right that the succession process has been very carefully planned, to boost the image of the royal family. Charlie shaking the hands with the public, and allowing a filmed peck on the cheek, is quite unknown in current British politics. Tories government members always hide away, and don’t allow the public nearer than a kilometre from them. I don’t remember whether Charlie did it much in the past.
The Scottish ties are being played up for sure.
The SNP could have easily embraced republicanism at some point, leaving them in a politically awkward position right now. As the UK media would have sought to divide Scottish opinion on that basis.
The end of the Queen’s reign undoubtedly strengthens the likelihood of Scottish independence. The Unionists have lost a respected unifying symbol of the Union. King Charles III, and his Queen Consort are likely to prove controversial. And in installing Liz Truss, I believe the Conservatives have chosen a UK version of Canada’s Kim Campbell. Campbell replaced deeply unpopular PM, Brian Mulroney, as Canadian Conservative party leader and PM. In the subsequent FPTP Federal election, held in November 1993, she saw her party go from government to holding just two seats. Campbell even lost her own seat and jokingly asked for someone to call for a taxi after the count, as she no longer had her Ministerial car. It was the worst defeat in the party’s history, and the worst defeat ever suffered by a Canadian governing party at the federal level.
In the UK, the establishment have rigged the game in anticipation of this scenario, by installing Sir Keir Starmer. If he wins a landslide all the wrong conclusions will be drawn about centrism. It’s a dilemma for the left.
Goose.
Looks like my fears have been confirmed, as our Stone of Destiny is to be removed from Edinburgh castle and sent to London for King Charles III’s coronation. In my opinion it doesn’t look good for a country that has aspirations of independence.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.scot%2Fnews%2F21273299.stone-destiny-moved-london-king-charless-coronation%2F
Do the BBC realise it’s not the 1950s? Meritocracy and aristocracy are like oil and water, they don’t mix. The outdated concept of inheritance as a basis for position or rank in society, should surely infuriate the BBC’s woke brigade, if they were being consistent to their professed beliefs that is. They will go as far as admitting this isn’t an age of deference – and thank goodness for that, but won’t draw the logical conclusion : that without deference the monarchy has no real hold or basis.
The ‘royalist’ crowds will probably applaud at the funeral. The custom – silence – as a mark of respect/contemplation seems unlikely to be observed. We’ve got the trappings of another age layered onto a country that sees monarchy as nothing more than Kardashian-like celebrities. Royalist interest these days is largely prurient, and limited to tabloid rumours of spats between its members, along with the glossy magazine spreads. This while the UK is desperately trying to sell itself as a modern western country. Where are the politicians, willing to challenge this fiction?
Correction : the 1993 Canadian federal election was held in October not November. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Canadian_federal_election
Bingo Goose! It’s the only way of keeping the fairytale of a two party state constitutional theocracy going. The Great Knight Dope was made for it.
Hmm. This reminds me of a quote from Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, upon hearing of a Turkish ambassador’s death, when he supposedly said, “I wonder what he meant by that?” (An alternative version has the Austrian ambassador saying the same about Talleyrand-Périgord’s death)
The Royal family’s role is downplayed by Ministers, as basically ceremonial. But in that case what was the purpose of Prince William spending three weeks working in secret for The Security Service (MI5), The Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and GCHQ?
There’s no suggestion he’ll have seen STRAP 3 highly sensitive information or anything like that, but what is the purpose of involving them?
Could it have something to do Ministerial exercise of the monarch’s prerogatives to get round parliament? Those powers exercised nominally by the monarch, “on the advice of” (that is, by constitutional convention, however so requested by) the prime minister and on the advice of the cabinet?
Genuinely intrigued as to what purpose is served by involving the Windsors?
It means he is only an employee of the Crown.
But why 3 weeks? When an half-hour briefing on their role and functions in the Director’s office would surely suffice? He inherited his position, yet gets treated to more openness from these agencies, than carefully vetted, elected members of the parliamentary oversight body the ISC.
Because he REALLY is just an employee. I suppose. Not just a figurehead. He really has to learn or they will off him like his mama… a bit like the new potus’s being shown the JFK video from various directions to show who exactly is in charge …?
I watched the proclamation at St James’ Palace yesterday morning (on television, not in person). A fascinating spectacle, especially the Clerk of the Privy Council’s speech/declaration, the language of which would not of have been out of place at the climax of one of Shakespeare’s history plays.
What was even more fascinating was the petulant behaviour of the new monarch when signing the proclamations. Appending his signature on the first copy went smoothly. The second copy had an inkwell/penholder on the top of it. Rather than moving it out of the way (as his dear mama would surely have down) he bared his teeth, scowled and gesticulated with the royal left hand for some hapless flunkey to shift it. Needless to say this display of temper has been airbrushed – the BBC’s highlights show him signing the first proclamation before cutting away to him pontificating at the lectern.
Moral. Watch events like this live.
It’s remoured Charles is very high-maintenance – diva-like and exacting. It was reported the then Prince had his aides squeeze 1 inch of toothpaste and lay out his clothes in a particular way. Rumours that Charles won’t lift a finger in the manner of the House of Saud, have featured in the UK press over the years.
The royal gesture was immortalised in a tweet, but I don’t have the link to hand.
There’s a link to it above.
KCIII was proclaimed king on a full moon, actually the full harvest moon.
Here’s his brother mourning the queen with his daughter.
https://mobile.twitter.com/thatbloodyMikey/status/1568955820548784130
It appears KIngs Charles will passionately oppose Scotland’s independence from the Union. Subsequent to his mother’s wishes for “Scotland to think very carefully” before the 2014 referendum and her mise en scène at the time of her death in Scotland, King Charles has affirmed independence of the Kirk guaranteed under the Act of Union of Scotland and England of 1707.
Acting as Lord High Commissioner King Charles will affirm his duty to preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion as established by the laws made in Scotland and entangle that statement with Acts of Union.
I believe emphasis will be desired from part of the statement by former Scottish advocate Ronald Murray who said, “..This power of ecclesiastical legislation is a very real mark of freedom, but not at all a mark of disestablishment. For what established church could ask for a greater measure of state association than to share with the civil authority the legislative power of the state?.. ”
Interestingly the Palace of Holyroodhouse hosts the Lord High Commissioner and His Grace receives a Guard of Honour, a 21-Gun Salute and the keys to the City of Edinburgh. It is also customary for the Lord High Commissioner to invite distinguished guests to stay at the Palace, and to offer hospitality to Commissioners to the Assembly and those who have contributed to public life in Scotland. It is at this time King Charles twix an important and influencial retinue, will force the Union steering any subsequent vote by the population of Scotland.
And the SNP will defer to His Majesty?
You’d be forgiven for believing they will after witnessing their behaviour over the last few days.
Exactly Goose; yield, bow and submit..
Most MPs seem more interested in an aristocrat, who grew up in total opulence at various country estates, than they are in those currently growing up on impoverished, crime-ridden council estates, in the constituencies they supposedly ‘represent.’
The first shows the rewards of success, the second the penalties of failure. Not surprising which way MPs eyes turn.
You may wish to look at Nostradamus The complete prophecies for the future
Published in 2006
After the mourning period there may be trouble ahead.
Youtube still showing the royal family doing their nazi salutes
Regular people with no connection to the royal family crying for the Queen? Give me a break!
I guess it is the same type of people that made fun of “brainwashed” north koreans when they cried for their deceased leaders…
Americans seem like the British monarchy, no doubt because many have bought into the fantasy of Royalty; that steeped in Arthurian legend and related lore; that of castles, absolute Kings, Queens, princes and princesses. Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings and spinoffs are hugely popular cultural phenomena. The reality of royal life is quite different, probably rather tedious and mundane, as Meghan found out. We Republicans are accused of spewing bile and hatred in not supporting the monarchy. But most royalists don’t pause for a moment to consider what it must be like being a leading royal. It’s certainly not a role I’d covet.
These are extremely wealthy people and were they no longer to be Royals, stripped of their titles, the quality of their lives would probably be immeasurably improved. Away from the media Goldfish bowl of royal life. We’d be doing them a favour by becoming a republic, something that many selfish royalists, who only want to be overly sentimental as now, and/or gawp at them, fail to grasp.
fifty years ago I was a first year student at Stirling uni when Mrs windsor paid a visit. We gave her a warm welcome. I’m sure that the now baron reid of Cardowan was somewhere about that day, weighing his options. i see that the old warmonger was active recently in the lords urging that contracts be placed to supply the ukies with armaments.
“Ukies”?
Shouldn’t be supplied with armaments?
I expect that you also would call on the DPRK not to supply the “Russkis” (sic) with munitions and on the Islamic Republic of Iran not to supply them with drones?
And indeed on the “Russkis” (sic) to close down their weapons and munitions factories?
You mistake me for a peacenik; it’s just that I’m not an Empire loyalist, like you sound to be.
I think you are. Only to a different empire.
No I dont support the fascist rulers in Kief that have 1, banned all oposition parties 2, sold off huge amounts of land to foreign corporations and 3, eliminated workers rights. Can you support a government thatt does these things?
Kyiv has banned pro-Russian parties but that’s hardly surprising, about 3.3 million hectares of Ukraine’s agricultural land is foreign owned, about the same amount as is foreign owned in Russia. Ukraine has passed some emergency wartime legislation restricting workers rights but hopefully this can be rescinded once this hostile invasion is over.
“emergency wartime legislation restricting workers rights but hopefully this can be rescinded once this hostile invasion is over.”
Some hope, unless Putin defeats the NatoNazis! I mean this is the regime that burnt 40 human beings alive in the TRADE UNION Building in Odessa. Sad that workers’ hopes have to be reposed in Putin, who holds that the last Tsar was a saint!
Political parties banned in Ukraine:
Left Opposition, Opposition Bloc, Socialists, Justice and Development, Ours, Derzhava, Vladimir Saldo’s Bloc, Socialist Party of Ukraine, according to the chesno.org
Also, The Opposition Platform – for life is banned too.
Interesting, that chesno.org runs Ukraininan and English versions of the website. The English version does not contain questionable and even radical sections of the site, which could potentially raise questions from anglophone readers.
Like in Ukrainian you can see the list of traitors
https://www.chesno.org/traitors/?n=&new=&dead=&category=&geoobject=&party=
Even you can filter the traitors by categories there ‘new’, ‘dead’, ‘politicians’, ‘media persons’, ‘judges and lawers’
You can fill in a form to report a traitor. There’s also an instruction on how to recognise a traitor.
Looks similar to another Ukrainian website Mirotvorets (Peacekeeper) myrotvorets.center
They publish personal data of targeted persons, for everyone to see. This activity was criticised by Dunja Mijatović, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.
Eva Bartlett and Russell Bentley enlisted there. Janus Putkonen from Finnland and Christelle Néant from France compared the existence of such a resource with the methods of Gestapo.
How does Charles Windsor’s environmentalism fit with being defender of Christianity and other hierarchical supernatural ideologies?
Charles Darwin’s grandpa Erasmus was a medical doctor and popular botanical poet, his father in turn had been involved somehow in one of the first dinosaur fossil discoveries. Erasmus changed the Darwin coat of arms to shells because we evolved from the oceans. But the local vicar campaigned against it which affected his business so he removed the logo from his work carriage. Erasmus fell out of favour and was almost imprisoned for supporting the French Revolution. He wanted to abolish the slave trade and supported American independence.
What can I add?
It was a revelation to me on Friday evening in our Social. The old farts, daily regulars, gammon by all appearance, to a man, did not care to watch C3 speaking to them as their new King! They’d rather have some stupid music video instead.
Marvellous!
However, a Monarchy, no matter how woke, mad or bad can only ever shut down its own lineage. But can it dissolve the Crown? I’m in no way a constitutional expert. Maybe some one here can help.
How can the Crown State and all its entitled praetorians be dissolved for ever? Without violence?
Where would they be without this sickly sweet, overly sentimental saturation media coverage? The British Brainwashing Corporation indeed. The whole thing feels artificial, a construct built by the media, it’s not organic, as much as the BBC and corporate media would like you to believe it is. Why are they subjecting us to this? What do they get out of perpetuating an outdated monarchy? Welcome to the British Twilight Zone.
To dissolve without violence we have to overthrow, and by that I mean to unseat men and women who are the gatekeepers/media manipulators of the State. To be clear, democratic population control relies on the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses; an unseen/invisible mechanism by men and women advised by experts able to target the spirit and mental structure of individuality resulting in a spiritual and psychological influence.
It is social engineering in simple terms and it is real and it is important. We must defeat this curse, this manipulation will debase, crush, repress and silence our children, our kin, our babies, future generations…
SE – It is the power, the skill, the force for those that govern. It achieves authority, influence, rule and sovereignty.
Interestingly President Putin is an expert in the manipulation of social consciousness through mass media albeit any suggestion of operating on information is dropped. China speaks volumes for social ‘adjustments’ –
Thus China and Putin’s Russia will overcome, will blow away Western information filth. So relax, delay and pray as an intention.
I have to add China has used the ‘lily-white’ end of the SE spectrum by eliminating absolute poverty nationwide – er – thats 100 million lifted out of poverty now flag-wavers!
The West, i.e. Britain, must manipulate this sterling piece of information by using the shit end of the SE spectrum as we read here on main manipulating media (MMM is British Broadcasting): “Has China lifted 100 million people out of poverty?” by Jack Goodman (BBC Reality Check, 28 Feb 2021)
“But can it dissolve the Crown? I’m in no way a constitutional expert.”
Indeed, hence my pessimism that a change to a republic for the UK would simply see “the Crown” replaced by “the State”. All the privileges and prerogatives would remain with the current bureaucracy of the Crown, except their boss would be no longer be royal and would probably be a senior civil servant appointed by the government. Meanwhile we would have a ceremonial president along the lines of Germany or Ireland, who would have nothing to do with that part of government once known as “the Crown”.
> dissolved for ever? Without violence?
I don’t think that’s possible. If the monarchy is ended without violence, there will always be descendants of royal blood that can declare themselves monarch, and demand the loyalty of the army. Only a Reign of Terror can prevent that. I don’t relish a RoT, but I would welcome the rush of earls and dukes suddenly changing their titles to Mister, and denying any connections with the royal family.
Craig… where on earth does this come from… I almost choked on my coffee this morning reading this sentence…
“He comes to power at the same moment as a new government under Liz Truss, which is utterly anathema to Charles’ political beliefs.”
From where I’m standing in the Antipodes, Charles the Turd and Miss Trust’s agendas are one and the same as Mr Global and Klaus Slob’s.
“Charles the Turd”
Now now, no need for that, just say “Charles the Third” in a southern Irish accent.
So far, Queen Elizabeth has apparently manifested in a cloud and a rainbow. I’m just waiting for somebody to discover her likeness in a taco and try to sell it on ebay.
@pretzelattack, I am pretty sure the Daily Mail’s ‘Cloud of Wonder’ was actually a promotional aerosol for the new Rings of Power series.
https://www.indiewire.com/2022/08/lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-on-tolkien-connection-1234751608/
Mistaking an Orc for the Queen shows poor canonship. Sauron wears the crown, surely.
Republican protesters arrested at King Charles proclamations.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/republican-protesters-arrested-king-charles-proclamation-events
A man said he was arrested for shouting, “Who elected him?” when the proclamation was read out in Oxford.
In Edinburgh, a woman holding a sign saying, “Fuck imperialism, abolish monarchy” was arrested moments before the reading of the proclamation.
Dear Craig,
I disagree with you about the monarchy in that I do believe it has a function in the modern world.
Those who reach the top levels of power and wealth start considering themselves as special, better than the mere plebs they are surrounded by, and they start becoming arrogant. This tendency towards arrogance is limited if there is always someone who is their better. It is particularly limited if that person embodies virtues that strengthen the country: integrity, decency, honesty and caring towards the “mere plebs”. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip served this function. She was interested in everyone, and Prince Philip popped the egos of those who were a little too full of themselves. This is a function that no one else can take on: publicly humiliating someone who believes themselves to be untouchable results in lawsuits or worse.
My concern is that the monarch has to embody the values with which (s)he is trying to imbue the kingdom. I cannot say I believe King (!!!) Charles 3 does so convincingly: for instance, the Church of England, of which he is the head, advocates against divorce, yet he divorced Lady Diana. And that makes him less effective at this task. The behaviour of Andrew and Megan further saps the moral authority of those left in the monarchy.
So, whereas the monarchy has a function to enforce decency among the elites, I am concerned that this function will not be performed, leading to a further decay of the UK. It is not a coincidence that the other mechanism used to tame the elites, called “omniscient God”, has become “obsolete”, while the hubris of the elites who do not understand how the world functions, is on the rise.
I am curious whether you are aware of any evidence, be it in your dealings with her, or from your time in government, that would disprove my understanding of the role she played.
I understand your view that monarchy has a function and I do empathise with your view that competitors or challengers might become arrogant and unrestrained (think Stalin and Mao).
It seems markedly more important here, in the UK, than elsewhere and that is inextricably linked to our history and heritage as “ruler of the waves”. It feels like “superiority over others” and it all seems like we are proceeding as if we still are “ruler of the waves” but now, sadly, the waves rule us.
Historically, with ruling the waves came colonial expansion and exploration and consequent riches and wealth from the gains gifted directly to the rulers with a duty imposed upon those rulers to display and exhibit all that riches and wealth which was exclusive to them and a pretty obscene public show of inequality and subjugation positioning us as subjects and servants of them. This is now being actively reinforced.
I fancy that we have evolved and the establishment has not anywhere near as quickly and it feels as if they are trying to drag us back rather than allowing us to proceed.
I am also concerned about just how King Charles will “tame the elites” because his inherent stance is an extremely bizarre and hypocritical one of rural privileged environmental utopian communitarianism which alienates more than it unites.
More evidence that Charles is not the royal we need…
https://gizmodo.com/uk-bbc-censor-weird-royals-king-charles-queen-elizabeth-1849579697
Not everyone in Edinburgh is a royalist. The BBC seemed to turn the sound down at various times. I wonder why?
https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1568923296753762304
UK Monarchy cost to the tax payer = £102.4million
UK Monarchy uplift to UK economy =£1.766 billion
The Monarchy is just a tourist attraction; they have no real power! We probably gave more to Amazon for less return.
Just because you don’t like the concept it’s difficult to argue that the Royal family doesn’t create real benefits to the UK.
How is that calculated?
Isn’t Paris consistently the top European tourist destination? The Palace of Versailles, sans monarchy of course. Saying tourists come to see the monarch is absurd, they visit to see historic buildings, visit the Natural History Museum, the National Gallery etc. They don’t come expecting to have tea with the sitting monarch. These places wouldn’t be demolished were the UK to become a republic.
Exactly Goose
All that about the Royals attracting £s through tourism is nonsense
Only 1 of the UK’s top 20 tourist attractions is in any way royal related. That’s Windsor Castle at number 17. A different Windsor attraction, Legoland, is at number 7. The idea foreigners are flocking to Britain because it’s got an unelected head of state is a baseless myth. Just self-serving establishment propaganda. Incidentally, as the largest landlords in the country they can just about fund their lavish existences without one penny from taxpayers let alone £102 million every 12 months.
With Charles stating he wants a slimmed-down ‘Scandinavian-type’ monarchy, our elected representatives should work with him to make that a reality. It’s a ridiculous state of affairs when the main roadblock to constitutional modernisation are those elected to represent the people, in the HoC and Holyrood. The ultra pro-royalist Telegraph argues in a piece today, that the cancelling of events is going too far : Don’t cancel things: The elite assumes it’s the ‘right thing’ to do, but even in 1952 the British public weren’t so keen.
The Westminster political elite are more out-of-touch with public opinion than Charles III.
Could be he’s more obsessed than them with clinging onto his Crown rather than more progressive. The fact he wants to tour the realm arm in arm with Liz Truss suggests his antenna is absolutely miles off.
I think the elevated soap opera of the Royal Family and its foibles is a huge element of the image of Britain held by johnny foreigners. They don’t see the depressed reality of life in a stagnant culture with no real social mobility, with the only achieveable “British dream” being an elevation to the middle classes or enterpreneurship built upon a bedrock layer of suppressed working class proles, slaving away for the means to survive while being burdened and shackled by ever greater chains of long-term debt.
The Royal Family distracts from that quite successfully, so the perception of Britain from overseas is all glitzy and spangly and superior to ordinary foreign rabble. That’s a large part of the reason why people think Britain is better. They want to visit the real-life set of The Crown and other glamorous screen images. They think it’s imbued with some kind of magic significance. Of course it ain’t, but their subconscious has been primed to see it that way by endless reams of royalist propaganda.
God (a fictional deity) save the King (an entitled toff with a distorted view of how the world works)!
We had a much more open constitutional debate 25 years ago than we do now. All the parties have regressed backwards into the ‘safe space’ of defending the status quo. Literally, look back through manifestos and debate from 25 years ago, and all, apart from the Tories, openly wanted to democratise the House of Lords, and get rid off or reform the royal prerogative powers – which date back to the Middle Ages (Jack Straw even wrote a pamphlet arguing the case). These days, suspicion of foreign interference infects the entire establishment and their enforcers. Call for a sensible adult debate and you’re ‘sowing division’ on behalf of a foreign power, that’s the level of retardedness the UK has sunk to. Could despair.
“They want to visit the real-life set of The Crown”.
You want them to.
Nowt t’do wi’ me, lad. I don’t sell souvenir baubles on Oxford Street.
Royalty plays no role in my life. However, for the reasons above, it helps to bring in a lot of tourists to pump up the economy. To the reasonable extent I’m in favour of a more vibrant economy, you may have a glimmer of the seeds of a point.
My only point was royalty isn’t why tourists visit Britain.
Aren’t you confusing people with places?
And anyways, the dubious claim ‘they bring in tourists’ is a poor rationale for maintaining our current constitutional arrangements. Maybe we should let the Americans decide then, they already decide our foreign policy.
@ Greg Park
“My only point was royalty isn’t why tourists visit Britain.”
. . . and my point is that it is why some of them do visit Britain. I’ve met people in B&Bs and at various tourist sites who said so themselves. Unless you think they were lying (maybe to sneakily hide the fact that they were really foreign spies? Hmmm . . . )
@ Goose
“And anyways, the dubious claim ‘they bring in tourists’ is a poor rationale for maintaining our current constitutional arrangements.”
It would be, if that were the only reason. But there better reasons. As I mentioned above, Jordan Peterson makes the point that a constitutional monarchy isn’t purely symbolic: it has a steadying influence on the executive, underpinned by tradition and national pride, which can prevent lightweights like Truss kneeling before power in Washington and being subject to presidential whims.
‘ it has a steadying influence on the executive, underpinned by tradition and national pride, which can prevent lightweights like Truss kneeling before power in Washington and being subject to presidential whims.’
Greg Park
The Queen’s influence didn’t stop Blair, this as two million of her subjects were marching against the Iraq war. It didn’t prevent Thatcher’s ruinous mass pit closure programme, or the outrageous privatisations of natural State monopoly infrastructure that belonged to everyone, not just greedy shareholders, including the Royal Mail, albeit later.
Blair has since stated, of his decision to commit UK forces to the US-led Iraq invasion: “If you believe in God, it’s made by God as well.” fruitcake stuff, some restraint on the executive. Give me a written constitution over that.
“The Queen’s influence didn’t stop Blair … “
And that’s largely because of Blair’s hubris. The Queen can only advise and raise points for consideration, but ultimately she has to say “I’ve expressed to you my concerns about this, but if you’re sure it’s for the best … “. Overruling a prime minister would provoke a huge constitutional crisis and risk the end of the monarchy, so she can’t even attempt it. It’s a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy. If she had tried to assert her dominance, she would soon have ended up in exile as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
If Madge did advise Blair of the risks of grovelling to the Bush administration and defying the UN (which we can’t know) he would have ignored her warnings anyway, just as he ignored the unprecedented public protests, because he believed he was on a mission from God, doing God’s work. That’s how deluded (or perhaps manipulative) he was. Blair couldn’t be intimidated by royalty, because he thought he was above it and had a huge mandate from the people to make decisions on their behalf, happily (or conveniently) backed by the will of the Lord. His messiah delusions, unshakeable self-assurance and charisma made for a very dangerous combination; and that lesson should have been learned. Then BoJo emerged. He didn’t turn out to be quite as idiological (sic) as he might have been. Maybe the lesson had in fact been learned by the monarchy, and Mrs Windsor occasionally nudged him in private to wise up a bit. Maybe. We can’t know. But the testimony of previous PMs suggests that her experienced counsel was rarely ignored by those with a touch of sanity.
It could be a different story with Ms Trust and Chuckie III, who are both more ideologically driven, in certain cases in opposite directions. I suspect he’ll try to have more influence, and she might resist. It’ll be interesting to see if any tensions emerge on the outside. Unfortunately we can only guess what goes on in the inside (unless you can suggest a way to bug the Palace).
Dawg
You take a very generous view of the Queen’s concerns and wise counsel. You’ve read Craig’s opinion and David Starkey’s. People who actually met the late Queen. Starkey, found the late Queen to be especially incurious and felt she was poorly educated in his encounters.
We don’t know what was discussed at those weekly meetings – another opaque part of our unwritten constitution – but past PMs have been almost condescending in their effusive praise, which suggests she didn’t have serious arguments with any of them.
“You take a very generous view of the Queen’s concerns and wise counsel. “
No, I was just illustrating the quite surprising point of view expressed eloquently by Jordan Peterson that we’re very lucky to have a constitutional monarchy for reasons of political stability and ethical progress (listen to his short talk first!), so we shouldn’t discard it lightly on the assumption that the alternative must be better. He reckons the monarchy won’t survive this change, but the alternatives are more dangerous. His argument was new to me, at least in the way he presented it. Clearly you won’t accept his opinion (whether you’ve listened to it or not). That’s fine. I’m just giving you a nudge that other people take a different position that’s well reasoned and supported by testimony from direct witnesses (albeit politicians), and so deserves some consideration. Considering it would mean your decision is better informed and more resistant to challenges. Ultimately your own final judgement is your choice. I’m not going to overrule you on it. 🙂
There are a lot of unknowns here. If you reckon you know how the meetings between the monarch and her PMs went, on the opinion of anti-monarchists who weren’t privy to those meetings but have formed a solid impression from meeting her briefly on ceremonial occasions, that’s a valid personal choice. They have at least have a good reputation for integrity and speaking truth to power (which is more than you can say for the other lot!). I wouldn’t ask you to go any further than acknowledge that an alternative view about those private meetings is backed by first-hand testimony (albeit from politicans with a keen personal interest) and a reasoned argument, as presented by Peterson. I don’t go any further that that myself. In fact, I usually disagree strongly with Peterson, and it’ll take time to pick through his reasoning on this to see (if and) where I think he went wrong.
I wouldn’t quibble with Craig’s impression of Herr Maj’s ceremonial personality, as far as it goes. He tells it like it is; but he ain’t her best pal, psychologist or adviser, and he isn’t on the privy council. I haven’t integrated his thoughts on the role of the monarchy with Peterson’s perspective yet. It’ll take some time to resolve the tensions between them and work out what exactly to accept, what to reject, and what to doubt. The process is called thinking, and it’s worth doing sometimes.
Political stability? The UK has had four PMs in the last seven years. Brexit still divides the country down the middle. Pro EU, Remain voting Scotland could be on the point of independence, and most people in the rUK hold Westminster and other institutions in very low esteem. The BBC isn’t as trusted as it likes to believe, nor are other London based media. It may be different in Jordan Peterson’s Canada? But certainly here in the UK, things don’t feel very stable, they feel quite volatile.
“But certainly here in the UK, things don’t feel very stable, they feel quite volatile.”
but they could easily be worse, a lot worse and I doubt it will be long before they are.
“Political stability? The UK has had four PMs in the last seven years.”
Exactly. And what has remained constant throughout that time, and over 62 years previous? Surely not an elected presidency – for many presidents would have been and gone in that time.
That’s right: . . . (fill in the blank)
I understand Starkey’s ‘poorly educated’ comment now. He wasn’t just being rude as I assumed. The Queen had no formal education and has no academic qualifications. Her parents weren’t in favour of that. Presumably, because they didn’t want her academic ability compared to others in that manner? Of course, it’s different nowadays for more recent and current day royals.
David.
The true cost of the royals.
https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals
“The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £345m.”
Not that that source is biased or anything, but even if we take that figure as accurate, the Monarchy for the last hundred years has cost us less than the Test and Trace fiasco.
Excellent article, I am surprised you did not find space to mention the Charlie won’t have to pay inheritance tax, as explained here:
https://www.axios.com/2022/09/11/king-charles-inheritance-tax-queen-elizabeth
His mother was a psychopathic wealth horder throughout her life, constantly pushing for parliamentary legislation that would further increase her vast wealth.
Alan Turing was hounded to death on her watch, at the beginning of her reign. As was/is Julian Assange at the end. Both are outrageous State perpetrated injustices, but as with Turing, the latter may take many decades to be widely acknowledged as such.
I wouldn’t blame her for either of those. Her only interference was in pursuit of ever more personal wealth.
Greg Park
Nor do I, at least not directly.
But did she raise concerns privately at her weekly audiences with the PM? I don’t know, but I’d wager not.
I don’t view the Queen as being particularly interested in human rights. She was more associated with horses and bloodsport.
I’ve often wondered if the persecution of Alan Turing wasn’t because he objected to having his life’s work handed over to the US, whilst he was not allowed to speak about it as it was still covered by the Official Secrets Act.
She wasn’t my queen.
The BBC hasn’t concentrated on one individual this much, since when they were taking Corbyn down.
Anyone seen the BBC’s The Capture? A so-so somewhat implausible drama, now in its second season. They seem to have squeezed in every bogeyman of the UK govt : sinister Chinese AI company; an obvious Cambridge Analytica-alike type outfit and now the Russians. Salisbury even got a mention. The most amusing thing though, is they have this fearless BBC Newsnight presenter, who’s not afraid to tell the spooks to get lost. She’s desperate to break stories the security state doesn’t want out there.
In real life, we’ve got the likes of Mark Urban as the gatekeeper.
Ironic, how the same people claiming the heckler was “being disrespectful’ are those holding up their mobiles to film the cortège, as if at a sporting event.
The same people will no doubt be there applauding outside at the funeral too. Are these really the people we want lecturing others on the appropriate decorum?
Goose.
Interestingly James Obrien who admits he’s a monarchist, said on his LBC radio slot today that those holding placards calling for the abolition of the monarchy at this time, whilst in the crowd awaiting Queen Elizabeth’s cortege to St Giles cathedral, should’ve been allowed to protest their side, instead of being manhandled away by the police.
Yes, it can be seen are poor timing to protest the monarchy, but in my opinion freedom of speech as long as it isn’t hate speech supercedes the poor timing angle.
RepublicofScotland
Definitely poor timing. Anti-monarchy protesters would be better waiting for Charles’s coronation next year.
That could prove very controversial for all sorts of reasons, particularly costs, given the cost-of-living crisis and Truss’ unpopularity. And the shine will have worn off, there’ll be more Commonwealth talk of replacing the monarchy and more UK politicians will feel comfortable openly opposing.
> Yes, it can be seen are poor timing to protest the monarchy
It is absolutely NOT poor timing to protest the monarchy. An interregnum is actually a fine opportunity for overthrowing monarchs (which is why they need to keep the interregnum as short as possible).
Regardless what the talking heads on TV may say there has really been only one *truly* extraordinary public spectacle amid all the sights and sounds since Thursday.
That is what Prince Andrew did to his daughter Eugenie at Balmoral yesterday, in full sight of nation and world.
https://mobile.twitter.com/conditionred7/status/1569070855392735233
Amusing to see the strict silence being observed on the incident by all the self styled iconoclasts here. (I’m not even talking about the Meghan bashers / Windsor lovers. Although that particular cohort must also process at some point how old Diana was when His Majesty our King came sniffing around her aged 29.)
Play the video at normal speed and it all becomes innocuous, but slow it down at an appropriate point and it appears suspect. You’re being played by the sickos who see misdeeds everywhere and are happy to create mischief.
And, IMO, the mentally challenged Diana was foisted on Charles as a suitable receptacle for Royal emissions and sprog production, he always appeared to have genuine affection only for Camilla.
I hope it’s only because they’re royals you’re defending them.