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.
I know I will be blocked, but I have to try.
Sir John Stevens
Metropolitan Police Commissioner
(Correos certificado 05291ES) 12 January 2004
Diana Spencer Inquest
Dear Sir,
Further to my copy letter to Sir Michael Peat of 16 November 2002.
I understand you have been charged by royal coroner Michael Burgess to look into the possibility that Diana’s death was other than a simple traffic accident. I have information that may be of assistance when making your enquiries.
My information concerns motive. Why would anyone want to murder the princess? And my answer is, the Treason Felony Act of 1848, as re-affirmed on 26 June 2003 by the High Court of England and Wales, viz:
3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies
…If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, …from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, …within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her… to change her… measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty… and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, …or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, …to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.
As you can see, this law grants unlimited powers to our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. So long as Diana was alive Charles was not free to marry. If Charles wanted these dictatorial powers for himself he had first to be rid of his wife once and for all. I’m afraid it has all happened before (in 1936 and 1952) and not only with Henry VIII.
Yours faithfully,
John Cleary BSc MA MBA
cc Mrs E. Windsor (ref. your Coronation Oath sworn 2 June 1953)
Michael Burgess
And now this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/camilla-to-be-crowned-queen-beside-king-charles-iii-at-his-coronation
It’s not just the BBC that has suspended all normal programming down here in Australia: Australia’s ABC has done likewise.
Charles knows nothing of medicine. His presence in government will be a disaster for healthcare.
The Health Secretary, Therese Coffey, knows nothing about medicine either. That’s a bit more concerning as far as I’m concerned.
Charles isn’t “in government”, by the way.
Grief, I hope the two don’t team up!
She’s actually Ken Clarke.
Imagine if King Charles abdicates and hands the position over to Prince William. What would that do to the Scottish independence movement? The ‘Kafflicks’ wouldn’t be happy having a ‘King Billy’ on the throne ruling over them. I’m thinking along the lines of divide and conquer. Get the kafflicks and proddies at each others throats and that’ll definitely split the indy movement.
Mist001, it’s the young people in Scotland that will give a majority vote for Scottish independence and those young people are not only walking away from the United Kingdom they have already walked away from the church so your suggestion that Kafflicks and Proddies will fight over a King William is just silly. Scottish schools do not teach Scottish history that explains all about the so-called King Billy from Orange so it’s irrelevant to the decision making of young Scots. I will go further with this: you do realise that most people living in Scotland dont actually know how or why William of Orange came here.
The Tories have already fired a shot across his bows with those stories about millions in Fortnum & Mason bags from Middle East despots. Doubtless there is far worse they can still release about him and he knows he is unpopular enough with the public as it is.
The Tories??! LOL, “…..hello, pot? Kettle here….”
– “The corporate and state media are unanimous in slavish support of monarchy.”
I have been told that the BBC Royal Correspondent Nicholas Witchell stated that the Queens death matters far more to the nation than any cost of living crisis. I think that demonstrates (apart from Witchell’s foolishness) that “the nation” and the people are entirely separate things.
An old lady has died; may she rest in peace. She certainly never had peace since being crowned; every move watched, and every word censored. Systems of power use individuals to their own ends, and the more “powerful” the individual, the more crushingly the system controls them, no matter the monetary rewards. I’m damn glad I wasn’t born into her position; all the money in the world couldn’t compensate me for the loss of freedom.
That was Clive Myrie and before she died.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sftj-V95gN0
Still a damn fool thing to say.
I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, comment on the main villains of this story; ‘the power behind the throne’
That abstract power base is the foundation and guardian of the class society we endure.
The tyrants in this country exist in those shadows…_
The BBC is pushing all that “the Scotland she loved” pish. That’ll be the vast swathes she owned, no so much the schemes.
One Scottish connection they’ll no want in the general public domain is the events running up to Eaglesham moor on the 10th May 1941.
https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/lob81-scotland-churchill-hess-1941.pdf
Nae harm tae teenage Lizzy, she escapes all responsibility, but her granny (Queen Mary) and by extension all adult members of the Royal household were up tae their necks in the conspiracy tae stage a coup against Churchill’s coalition government and sign a peace treaty with the Nazis.
Why do you think they wheeled her to Balmoral?
Didn’t you write that Princess Anne was far more clueful and aware of the situation in Uzbekistan than any Minister when you were appointed Ambassador there?
Yes, that is true.
Is republicanism illegal in the UK?
The government has confirmed that republicanism is still punishable by life imprisonment and that it remains illegal to even ‘imagine’ overthrowing the Queen.
Holding opinions is not illegal, no.
Ask any politician to defend the hereditary principle and whether they’d recommend its implementation for other public roles, and watch them squirm.
That’s the unspoken truth. Every single MP in the HoC claims they support equality and meritocracy – things that are antithetical to their support for monarchy – which they all swear an oath to defend. Hypocrisy is at the core of the British parliamentary system.
They’re always banging on about democracy and yet they won’t do anything (and journalists never ask them why) about the House of Lords.
Actually they have done quite a lot about the House of Lords in the last 30 years, including reducing the number of hereditary peers by more than 600 (in 1999). Summary here.
Of course it really needs to be abolished completely, (and replaced by some elected body), not reformed. But “democracy” is really a sick joke in the UK anyway; it seems to me that getting rid of FPTP, which usually gives a party with the support of about 40% of the electorate supreme power, is more important.
The Queen’s death is uniting Brexiteers and people’s voters in a way we haven’t seen since they worked together for a Tory majority in 2019.
BTW why is the Premier League being called off to appease people like this?
https://twitter.com/annastewartcnn/status/1567945821123137538?s=20&t=sTbMtr1mz07vnw_mx4JPYg
In the recent BBC documentary series Days that Shook the BBC, bizarrely in the first episode where David Dimbleby asserts his view on the corporation’s independence, he says (lightly edited for concision):
“In my experience, the BBC is more scared of the Palace than it is of number 10 Downing Street… [where] the inhabitant comes and goes. Buckingham palace, while the Queen has been on the throne, is stable, unchallenged… [so] the BBC [is] nervous about the Palace. The relationship has intentionally been made very close from the very beginning of the BBC’s history… the BBC sees itself very much as part of [royal events]. You cover the royal events in a dignified way, but you never challenge the idea of monarchy. How many films have been made about the cost of the royal family? [or] about whether we need all these royal hangers-on? [or] about whether the Queen is doing a good job or not? There’s been a kind of taboo in the BBC about monarchy. It’s as though every other institution can be challenged [Commons, Lords, banks, judiciary], can all be cross-examined and looked at… But the monarchy was deemed to be the unassailable part of the Constitution. What ever the Palace wants should be carefully looked at and agreed to and done on the Palace’s terms.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001bnqn/days-that-shook-the-bbc-with-david-dimbleby-series-1-1-independence#t=0h36m35s
There was a first blip in that relationship, says Dimbleby, around the Diana Panorama interview. But the pattern re-asserted itself. Of course, MI5 vetting of BBC recruits would have been geared to keep out republicans.
That puts the royal-chartered BBC firmly in the category of royalist propaganda machine. How many other royal chartered organisations (overseen by the Queen’s Privy Council, her own secretive committee of governance) have similarly failed to challenge British royalism?
An interviewer might have asked Dimbleby, “deemed by who?”.
I watched ‘Comedians Giving Lectures’ on UKTV, last evening.
Nicholas Witchell was not nicknamed “The Poison Carrot” for nothing.
These two comments are completely unconnected.
Sybaritic
Learned a word 🙂
Me too….
you know what happens when an archaic institution has passed its time? .. the Establishment doubles down on propping up that archaic institution.
Whether it’s Royalty or NATO .. the foolish powerful demand perpetuation of their hare-brained institutions.
Good point mijj
“the foolish powerful”
If the powerful were foolish, they wouldn’t be powerful. Scheming, cunning, unscrupulous, corrupt, hypocritical, perhaps; but not foolish.
Without any undue animus – one can view and trace with historical reference and accuracy the actual history of what the British monarchy represents. If, say referencing 1066 about a thousand years is the full lineage – then what if we were to enter somewhere in the middle and then view forward along a trajectory to Elizabeth 11? We would find Elizabeth 1 being involved in The Royal African Company and then doing great and lucrative business with John Hawkins. Not surprisingly the profits from the Atlantic African slave trade remained in the family treasure chest. All to say that perspective and historical reality are different things to different people:-
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/09/09/688890/UK-Monarch-Succession-Caribbean-Colonies-Jamaica-Bahamas-Barbados-Charles
Elizabeth 11? You mean we’ve got nine more to come?
Craig, why are you taking down comment about the monarchy that is absolutely non offensive save to say that their time has passed.
My recent comment I thought was absolutely fair save that my reference to our new King, his adulterous behaviour and his prior desire to be a sanitary towel might not have been to everyone’s taste. But that is the reality. Charles committed adultery, cheated on his wife, was unfortunate or stupid enough to have an intimate conversation with his bit on the side reported around the world. And yes, his brother has, unless it is acceptable behaviour for royals, a rather unfortunate way with young underage girls.
Yes Elizebeth is gone. A mother, a grandmother, a great grandmother, and will I suspect be missed. But the monarchy and all it represents, will it be missed. I think we know the answer to that. Certainly not for the majority of Scots and certainly not for a substantial portion of England.
___
[ MOD : Racial slur removed ]
___
I hope these comments are fair and will not be considered offensive to the extent that you have to take them down. If however you are being forced by the establishment to censor comment then I understand.
Just FYI … Craig has an entire team of moderators working for him, he doesn’t vet every single post himself (in fact, it’s unlikely he even looks at most of them). One of the mods doubtless felt your comments didn’t meet the standards in some way, ‘The Establishment’ does not control or influence this blog.
Willie, I used to moderate at this site and I confirm glenn_nl’s reply to you at 19:58. Links to the moderation policy rules below; I do wish Craig would create a link to the rules, preferably near the comment form; I’ve been going on about it for years.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/moderation-rules-commenters/
Older version:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/some-rules-for-comment-moderation/
Thanks for getting back Clark.
When commenting I try not to be offensive. It adds nothing to any argument. I had thought my earlier comment removed was fair comment and not offensive. However, perception and a natural fear of the authorities can no doubt influence moderators decision.
Craig’s blog is a good blog, well considered comments, and one of the best on the net I’d say. And the BTL comments are good. Far be it for me to bring down the tone or cause Craig problems.
Very kindest regards.
I’m intrigued as to why the BBC thinks its role is to pump out propaganda for the hereditary principle? Is that appropriate as opposed to facilitating a national debate on whether we want Charles Windsor as our next head of state?
And expect the likes of state informant Paul Mason to chime in, saying Republicanism must be Russian sponsored, “they’re trying to divide us” because they hate our err.. say it, our UNDEMOCRATIC values?
Amazing how those associated with ‘woke’ values and preaching equality on social media, can somehow bend to accommodate supporting something as anachronistic as the hereditary principle. Or is the monarchy an exception, like taking a break from a strict diet?
“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.”
Otherwise known as rent, when paid to a mere commoner.
Lizz Truss and her agenda for government have marginally more democratic legitimacy than Charles, and I suspect his views are more in line with the public.
Some years ago, the Guardian made a big fuss about what it called the “Black Spider memos”, letters written by (then) Prince Charles. It wanted to publish them, he wanted to keep them private.
In the end the Grauniad won and published the letters.
The result (judging by the comments on the Graun’s website) was to make people more sympathetic to Prince Charles. He seemed to care a lot more about ordinary people than most politicians do.
Of course I agree with Craig that royalty has no democratic legitimacy and should be abolished. Charles should have no more (and no less) political influence than any other citizen. But I share Scott’s suspicion than his views are more in line with the public’s than Ms Truss’, for what that’s worth.
President Vladimir Putin has sent a telegram to King Charles with these words that appear apathetic to the British media machine:
“..I ask you to convey the words of sincere sympathy and support to the members of the royal family and all the people of Great Britain,”
Putin wished Charles “courage and perseverance” – in the hope I believe the new king will turn away from the push to destroy his country.
No melancholy, no funereal, no sepulchral and no subliminal broadcast will equate to the misery and shock of the deepening world conflict; the near nuclear battle for domination and authority bereft to the trusting minds of the innocent, the children and the naive.
At this time I recall the death of Princess Diana and of Buckingham Palace with no flag at half-mast because “the Queen was at Balmoral…The Queen had ordered all radios and televisions to be removed from Balmoral so “William and Harry aren’t upset by the coverage of their mother’s death…”
And why did GCHQ record Squidgygate? Why the NSA cannot release intelligence on Diana? And of Trevor Rees-Jones who survived the horrendous Paris car crash. He was sent to dodge bullets in Iraq and keep his memory blank and his mouth shut..
I wonder if Lloyd’s of London will ring the Lutine Bell at the Royal funeral?
Dieu et mon droit..
Mark,
Of course there is/was something untoward with the death of Diana. The ‘ Mishcon note’ speaks volumes – unless one is going to ignore it and naively assume – mere coincidence.
Like Russia China has politely expressed condolence:-
https://english.news.cn/20220909/4eac15f41d3748eeaebf255c81a699b1/c.html
The MSM coverage concentrates on praising the Queen’s longevity and commitment to duty, it’s hard to argue with that view. But consider this is a constitutional monarchy, what that implies; the Queen has a guaranteed weekly audience with the given PM of the day, and there is also matter of royal assent. Powerful tools to stymie bad PMs pushing bad law. There has been legislation, that it’d be worth creating a constitutional crisis over.
Consider the view of historian David Starkey in this guardian piece from 2007:
Queen is poorly educated and philistine, says Starkey
Starkey has delivered a less than rose-tinted verdict on the head of state, accusing her of philistinism and being uninterested in her predecessors, largely due to being poorly educated.
“I think she’s got elements a bit like Goebbels in her attitude to culture,” the historian told the Guardian. “You remember: ‘Every time I hear the word culture I reach for my revolver.’ “
When Starkey was showing the Queen round an exhibition he had curated about Elizabeth I in 2003, he found her more preoccupied with the late arrival of her drink (gin and Dubonnet) than the works on display. Her only comment on the exhibition was that one of the objects was hers.
This, said Starkey, reminded him of “a housewife” who’d been left some wonderful possessions. “She’d looked after them, she’d put in place much better arrangements for their care, but again – I suppose it’s this absence of any kind of, to be blunt, serious education.”
I wouldn’t consider any views of Starkey. The Queen probably wasn’t right-wing enough for him. I suppose he’d prefer Henry VIII. I’d also be more interested in booze than listening to David Starkey – I’m actually with Liz on that one.
As if it was needed, confirmation of the mental weakness of the majority of UK ‘citizens’:
1. “The World is in mourning”
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/queen-elizabeth-death-mourning-london-bridge-protocol-b2162721.html
> No it isn’t
2. “BBC host Clive Myrie said the current energy price crisis was “insignificant” compared to the queen’s health”
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2022/09/09/bbc-coverage-of-the-queen-insulted-millions-of-us/
>No it isn’t
3. Shoppers this morning spending £30-£50 on flower bouquets to lay on the ground as a ‘mark of respect’ – these will probably be in the skip next week.
> What about the homeless, hungry, poor ? What about contributing to a royal charity instead ?
Diana madness mark 2.
The UK’s average reading age is 9 years. That is just the average. Half of them are stupider than that.
This is something which shocked me when I started writing. I wrote for an adult audience, only to be informed by an editor that my lexicon, was too advanced for a mass audience. The suggested (extensive) revisions, turned the piece into babyspeak, and this I was told, was the level at which one must write in order to avoid alienating the vast majority of the potential audience. If you want to understand why we end up being governed the way we are, by the kinds of people we elect to govern us, you need only reference the remedial capacity the vast majority of the population has to comprehend and evaluate, even the most trivial ideas.
Alas, those of us blessed with a deftness of mind, are at the mercy of those in which this quality is sorely lacking.
The education of the masses is impoverished. It’s all too easy – convenient for the privileged, and lazy for the fortunate – to blame generalised stupidity among the population.
Give everyone a decent education then.
I’ve suffered from similar editing from communications staff – problem is, I am writing for a professional audience for whom such dumbing down is deeply insulting.
But here’s a radical thought: why not write adult-level text, and give your audience a chance to learn something, rather than dumbing down?
There’s a good example above – use of the word “sybaritic”, with the response being “Learned a word ?”. I bet that would not have survived the editor’s pen.
Yes. The police are similarly dumb. The amount of times I have seen “Was you” is legion. We were told at school the reading ages of the papers. For the Sun age 10, the Mirror 10, the express 11, the daily mail 11, the guardian 13, the times 16 and the Scotsman 18. I can’t remember where the financial times was situated. Half the population hasn’t a clue. You speak in more than two syllables and they’re flummoxed.
It truly is a pain to be highly educated, literate and aware of all the deficits of everything.
I actually met the Queen when I was 7. She snapped at Philip for making one of his usual gaffes, directed at me apparently, and then suddenly became sweetness and light to me for flowers and then handed them over and moved on. I’ve had a healthy distrust of all the cloying sweetness since. That three year old who ran away from her. Children have a innate sense. I wasn’t really impressed.
Ross thanks for that.
Dumbing Down wasn’t a disease it was a prescription.
All Cultural activity has been bent to that cause. It’s how to retain religious orthodoxy control of centuries in a ever more scientific world where you can’t control these who are naturally born to Thinking.
The tip of the iceberg is just the imbecilic levels you note.
I agree Stevie Boy
Thank you for being so kind about Elizabeth 2. Since you are somebody who has succeeding in annoying the same ‘ firm’ that she was working for, and paid the very severe consequences of their displeasure, you are in a good position to be a judge of her chances of success if she had ever tried to rebel. Not zero, but at risk of the severest punishments imho.
Being married to an Asian wife who is not from South Asia I know the huge economic advantages the Queen signed into Law for South Asians from India Pakidtan and Bangladesh. They can bring whoever they like to this country with little restriction ,for both present and future generations for marriage.Their benefits rights are more generous as well.
If the Queen had discriminated against them on grounds of race, religion, colour, wealth or education, we could have flagged her as a religious bigot or racist. Instead her very surprising Royal Assent to the present rules have greatly assisted the normalisation of Islam in Britain.
That is very different to the habits of MI6 and the CIA, so I say a big thank you to Queen Elizabeth 2 for vastly expanding the moral and religious knowledge and experience of Britain. She has rectified countless wrongs of the vile British colonial Raj and I pray for an easy reckoning on the Day of Judgement for her for her strong faith.
In return I would ask Muslims to acknowledge that some practising English Christians are different from our politicians who always think only about money and power.
I hate the firm, but I think she was a fantastic monarch, within the limits of highly restricted power. Diana’s boys inherit Elizabeth’s feminism and Di’s kick-arse. Her legacy.
Giyane, did you read that in a comic?
Would you prefer a potus like Trump or Biden?
Not the same system at all. You can have a president like they have in Germany, totally ceremonial. Can you name a German president? Most Germans can’t.
Oh dear, dear G.
As you will know the Queen didn’t make these decisions herself. She just enacted these Acts with some French words. She did precise over many exceptions for her and the Crown from many Acts to perpetrate a two tier system for financial gain.
The Pakistanis amongst other Asians, just as the Afrocaribbeans in the U.K. were not invited for any reason except exploitation and have been generally kept in ghettoes. It is racist fascist state and Crown. It always has and will be until it collapses, one way or other.
You either have to defend it from that or welcome its demise as a C21st Human being, one of 10 Billion before the end of this century. Religious orthodoxy to any one such invented hierarchy can not possibly be the choice for anyone that understands the diversity and potential of every human.
I see they’ve already attempted to politicise her death. The BBC on several occasions has ‘asked the question’ of how the fact that she died in Scotland with the attendant pomp/lying in state in Edinburgh will affect the notion of “nationalism” as they put it. I could have coped a little better with all this if this hadn’t been something said within an hour of the announcement of her death..
Imagine if she’d died a few days ago while actually shaking hands with Liz Truss!
Queen who?
Well said Craig, anyway I see the media propping up the royals for a long time to come, in order to give them the appearance that they are somehow relevant when they are not.
My abiding memory of the Queen in my own memory (though I never actually saw it) was that of David Cameron then PM, relaying to the media that she (The Queen) purred like a cat when she found out NO had won the 2014 indyref. One day, hopefully sooner than later a section of the public who still believe in this ruritanian nonsense, will wean themselves off it, and the monarchy will be a thing of the past.
When the media get bored expect Charles to be called the ‘King of Tampons’ and that old audio recording to emerge. Just a matter of time.
At least the Guardian feminists will be infuriated by patriarchy reasserting itself. And another male next in line.
The next big media interest will be in whether Meghan wears Givenchy, or possibly something from Dior, for the funeral …you know, the things that really matter to tabloid royalists.
Goose.
It’s interesting to note that sycophants in the media are prattling on about duty and service when it comes to Queen Elizabeth, no mention whatsoever of immense wealth and privilege. Will the Stone of Scone be moved from Scotland to England for Charles to be crowned on during his coronation, and will Scottish (supposedly nationalist) MPs and MSPs need to swear loyalty again this time to Charles III.
We’ll have weeks and weeks of this arse-licking reminiscence on Queen Elizabeth on the tv, and that will be followed by God only knows how many documentaries on her and Prince Philip, and with Scotland’s tv channels being controlled by England, it’s going to be a few months of absolute torture.
The Telegraph are upset at the cancelling of The Last Night of the Proms…
Not because they think it an unnecessary intervention in the nation’s life, but because they want attendees to embrace tub-thumping jingoism; with flag waving patriotic fervour turning the event into something akin to the Nuremberg rallies for the monarchy.
Goose.
My wee neighbour an elderly, but still quite spritely chap, was rather upset today as he couldn’t put on his bookie lines in his usual William Hill’s bookies, apparently, they are all closed as a remark of respect for the queen.
I’m not a football fan but I think that the football league fixtures this weekend on both sides of the border have been cancelled, again, in a mark of respect to the queen passing. I wonder what else, apart from as you say Last Night at the Proms, and the ones I’ve mentioned, has been cancelled or postponed in a mark of respect at the queen’s passing.
I’m not sure? But many small traders will surely be out of pocket think of those with perishable goods. And given the ongoing cost-of-living crisis that matters.
There should probably be some govt compensation? It only seems fair.
Take a look at the Guardian’s coverage. Hard to believe this is a newspaper that frequently argues the case for a republic in its editorials and carries opinion pieces arguing the same. Most of its journos used to favour abolition.
Under former fashion writer Viner it’s perma drunk on the establishment’s Kool-Aid. They’d probably say they are swimming with the tide, capturing the public mood etc. But being unprincipled like that, is why nothing ever changes. Now is the time to make the case. Dare to be different, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” moment of public doubt.
Even google are joining in, as big tech and State become one, an unelected monstrous Big Brother-like entity, portending the digital dystopia to come?
Under former fashion writer Viner it’s perma drunk on the establishment’s Kool-Aid. They’d probably say they are swimming with the tide, capturing the public mood etc. But being unprincipled like that, is why nothing ever changes. Now is the time to make the case. Dare to be different, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” moment of public doubt.
There is zero question that the tide is in the opposite direction. I work in quite an “establishment minded” organisation, but the mood among staff at all levels has been primarily of agnosticism on the Royals, and frustration that after months of paralysis because of the Tory leadership contest, we now have more Government paralysis.
Yes, this is a big news story. Yes, there is a role for the media in understanding the constitutional and practical implications. But we are already past the point that people are getting fed up with it.
I seem to recall that when the Queen Mother died, the intended protocol was for at least two days of complete TV blackout of normal programming, but that before the end of the first day, there had been significant pushback, and the media companies started going back to normal programming sooner than they had intended. I dread to think what the guidance was for the Queen’s death at that time. I am sure it has been significantly revised since. But it is still way further in the direction of blanket coverage than the general public as a whole.
RepublicofScotland you are so right, this is going to be 1966 all over again fifty years of mentioning it at every opportunity .
Most of England see her as an English queen ruling over Scotland and will think of Charles III in the same way an English king ruling over the Scots
The media keep talking about our whole nation. i.e. singular.
Maybe it’s like Britain’s Andy Murray: British when he’s winning, Scottish when he’s lost?
Why do we need a monarchy ? Some say, because it’s better than having a President, for example. But why do we need any unelected body wielding executive power over our elected representatives ? Time to get rid of the monarchy and the house of lords.
Monty Python aptly summed it up:
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn’t vote for you!
Arthur: You don’t vote for kings!
Woman: Well ‘ow’d you become king then?
(holy music up)
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake — her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some… farcical aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Man: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!!
Why do we need a monarchy? In order to not have too much democracy.
“there are bits of the media that dislike Meghan for being black”
a cheap shot. There are very good reasons to dislike her, and the hostile media focus on them. Some parts of them may be covering for racism, but she’s given them a way to avoid showing it.
Nice to read an article about this which is not slavishly sycophantic, and doesn’t assume that we’re all ‘heartbroken’. I have no personal animosity towards them. I’m a republican who’s interested in how QE2’s death might impact any move towards the abolition of the monarchy, so thanks for your perspective.
I concur. I think Liz did a fine job as Queen. She didn’t involve herself in politics beyond “going with the flow”. But her kids have proven an embarrassment. As a Canadian I have always been aghast at the idea of a foreign head of state. Times change. The monarchy was, and still is, a fine instrument for keeping people “controlled”, but I think we now need people to think for themselves and function thusly. Failure to do so will result in more “covid” scenarios, more wars and more directions from the state as to what you should think, act and do.
Sorry but you are very wrong on that observation that she ‘didn’t involve herself in politics’. She certainly interfered by uttering ‘privately’ in front of journalists, at Balmoral coincidently, her disquiet at Scotland voting ‘YES’ in the Referendum of 2014. A direct intervention that was designed to influence the substantial minority of loyalist/royalists in Scotland. Her official title was an affront to Scottish monarchists (one of which I am not). She was never Elizabeth the Second of Scotland. Her namesake predated the Union of the Crowns and was responsible for imprisoning and fitting up Mary Queen of Scots, then executing her.
The Saxe Coburg Gotha/Battenburg/Windsors are one of a long line of imported elites used to hide the complete undemocratic dictatorship by the Westminster English run parliament of the ‘UK’. Why Scottish folk and the working class of England should be celebrating her successor, a money grabbing, self-pitying waste of space related to an entire class of mega welfare grabbing ‘aristocrats’ is beyond me or anyone who is a functioning rational person. But those still in doubt then pay attention to the torrent of reverential pish pouring out of the BBC/Media in a unilateral orgy of imperial introspection. All directed at a symbol of the total inequality of wealth and privilege existing in this state and in the face of an unprecedented cost of living existential crisis for the ordinary people.
Lochside, you say it so well.
Hear! hear!