Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Blessed Be the Royal Couple

I've never had any time for the Royals. Even when I was a teenage Tory I had zero respect for Queen Elizabeth II and her family of Britain's wealthiest benefit claimants. So strong was this dislike for the pomp and pomposity of the monarchy that even at my most nationalist I refused point blank to sing the national anthem. There was something archaic and faintly ridiculous about them that deeply went against the grain of whatever I was thinking - and this was well before my introduction to the socialist critique of constitutional monarchies.

I haven't mellowed with age either. Just thinking about Royal weddings, "Squidgygate", the fire at Windsor Castle, the North Korean-style official mourning for Diana Windsor, the jubilee, the funeral of the ludicrously titled 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother', and all the petty palace intrigues the papers trade in is almost enough to bring me out in a rash. The fawning of the media, particularly the BBC's royal correspondents, is guaranteed to put me in a paroxysm of fury.

So no. I will not be falling over myself to watch the heir to one of Britain's wealthiest families wed the daughter of millionaires at the taxpayers' expense. In fact I confidently predict I'll be doing everything in my power to avoid all coverage. Perhaps I'll join the protest against this waste of money down in London. Or maybe I'll voice my displeasure by penning some Marxist screed or another on why Britain is still lumbered with such an absurd constitutional set up.

Until that time, the best comment on the engagement of William Windsor and Kate Middleton by far comes courtesy of the
Caledonian Mercury. This is their front page:
Couple Who Met at University to Marry
By James Browne

Two people who went to university together are to get married, it has emerged.

William Windsor (or possibly Wales or possibly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) and Kate Middleton, both 28, met at St Andrews University eight years ago.

Mr Windsor is a Flight Lieutenant in the RAF – and also a prince.

Wall-to-wall, dewy-eyed hysterical coverage can be found in every other media outlet.
If only the rest of the media followed suit.

19 comments:

TGR Worzel said...

I know what you mean Phil and I broadly agree, particularly about the media. I turned the TV off pretty quickly, once I'd got the headline, and am now off out to the pub. I've no interest in watching the big interview on the One Show at 7:30pm.

But on the other hand, its human nature to wish them both well and I'd like to do so. Hopefully this marriage will be more successful than those of the previous generation of Royals...

And one other thing that occurred to me was this. Can you imagine what it must be like to be Kate Middletons parents, waking up one morning to realise that you are probably going to be a future Monarchs grandparent...?

Bl**dy Hell. What a life change that is....!

The Invention of Tradition said...

It's pretty much the same life change as my parents feel when I explain to them that I am going to be made redundant from my job and I am unlikely to find an alternative for quite a few years, because the system is run in the interest of greedy scrounging people best epitomised by the two individuals you are talking about.

My parents were never unemployed, they were lucky to live their adult lives in the relatively prosperous post second world war economy. Me and my brother and sister were the first to go to university of our family. It is unlikely that the next generation of my family will, given once again, the priorities and interests of the class, best represented by the two individuals you talk about.

My parents can't imagine that it's got so bad again. Imagine how they feel waking up and reflecting on how hard it's going to get.

So excuse me if I don't give a damn for Kate and Harry. Excuse me, if when I see the opulence of their "do", I compare it to the cheap, but cheerful weddings of the people I work with. Excuse me if, when they honeymoon somewhere exotic, and the media fill our news with tales of how lovely their fortnight will be, I reflect on the holiday I didn't have this year.

Excuse me, if when the majority of people start to question why there are a tiny minority with such wealth, and the majority of us with little hope, I side with them and hope that the walls of the palaces are torn down for good.

Oliver Cromwell said...

All helps with the retro Eighties feel to have a royal wedding amid econmomic crisis. How much do these royal parasites cost. Perhaps we can start making some savings here.

Valleys Mam said...

Charles and Diana's wedding cost us over £30m - how much are we forking out for this one?
I am already sick of the blanket scmooz in the media is this supposed to dull the pain to the cuts.
Being Welsh I am also rather peeved that she is being refered to as a future princess of Wales.
Not all of us are happy with that title being perpetuated

remi online said...

same thing here..i don't really care about this wedding, but i must say i envy these people for how they are treated..

Billy O. said...

The Royal Family costs about 62p per adult in the UK per year. Isn't that a bargain when you consider the great job they do for the fresh paint industry? And all that waving and smiling? It's worth every last penny! Next year I, for one am going to give them 63p.

Gary Elsby said...

£30million for the last wedding?
My guess is that is loose change made by the pot-banks of stoke-on-Trent, before, during and after.

Personally, I have nothing but respect for the Royal Family and care little for criticism of contradiction to socialism.
I too once thought like you Phil, but then I attempted to understand the role in some depth and came out agreeing with the dynasty for Britain.

Again, only a personal thought, but If I am to ahve a choice of a Royal doing their duty, a Royal Family continuing the cause for Great Britain or a Marxist thug throwing a fire extinguisher upon one of its own, I'll go for the Royals anyday.

I've heard all the arguments against the Royal family and to be honest, they just don't stack up.

The Yaketeringburg murders was the most sickening act the left have ever committed and forever tarnished the moral highground socialism.

Chris said...

"but If I am to ahve a choice of a Royal doing their duty, a Royal Family continuing the cause for Great Britain or a Marxist thug throwing a fire extinguisher upon one of its own, I'll go for the Royals anyday."

I didn't realise that was the choice. Must be in the small print of the constitution.

P.s. I will take the 'Marxist' 'thug'.

"Personally, I have nothing but respect for the Royal Family"

Someone pass the sick bucket. Is this really the 21st century. No, really, is it?

Robert said...

George V refused to allow the Tsar and his family asylum in Britain because it might have been bad PR, so our royal family shares in the guilt of Yekaterinburg. All the more shameful since George V and the Tsar were cousins.

Yekaterinburg has to be put in the context of the horrors of the Russian Civil War in which hundreds of thousands died. Britain along with the other Western Allies invaded Russia on the side of the Whites. There was a reason for Red Terror at the time since the Bolsheviks were involved in a war of extermination. There would have been no mercy for any of the Bolsheviks had the Whites won.

Gary Elsby said...

So of course, a bed bound disabled boy was shot in the head 20 times, chopped up and thrown down a mine-shaft.
All in the good cause of the reds.
Is the sick bucket coming over this way?
I gather the George V story is being revised as it new evidence is coming to light of a rescue attempt and safe passage to a neutral Country. It is a crying shame for the left, that this was not a successful outcome all round.

On the point of our Royal family.
We can go sown this path for ever and never agree, I acccept that.
But the removal of such a Dynasty would probably do nothing at all to further anyone's case for a better Britain.
Many people do get great enjoyment out of this family and many do feel a sense of pride at having one.
When I joined the army, the recruiting Officer asked me what i would like to do.
"A helicopter pilot, thanks".
"Shhhhhhhhh....(a shake of the head for a minute or so), you backgound isn't good enough" he said(Miner's son).
Twat I thought then, twat I think now and twat he was.
I see that the Prince, William, is passing out as a helicopter pilot and I assume (a guess) that HIS background (family own UK) was acceptable.
Do I have a hang up about this turn of events? Yes.
Could I fly a helicopter and rescue people? I don't know, I'm a son of a Miner for God's sake! I'd probably crash it, kill everyone on board and crash it into a special school before burning out a local hospital.
I have no hang ups about a young man marrying the love of his life and going on to become King.
I continue my fight for equality, all the same, regardless.

Boffy said...

You can't be very serious about fighting for equality and defend the most unequal principle - the hereditary principle - there is. The Chinese will be licking their lips of course, because all the Royal Tat that will be sold will be made by them - including the crockery.

The inequality is also demonstrated in the attitude toards the Tsar. During the Revolution and Civil War there were tens of thousands of people who died, many at the hands of British soldiers fighting for their particular King, and who had been sent to Russia precisely to fight against the idea of equality. Yet, the only people whose death that anyone seems to want to discuss is that of Nicholas Romanov.

And to put it in in context, this was a man who on a daily basis was in favour of people being flogged for not better treason than to instill fear and discipline into them. This was a man who thought nothing about sending workers, and peasants in their thousands, Men Women and Children to their deaths without losing a night's sleep over his decision.

Its interesting that the Americans carried out a revolution to get rid of their King, and despite all the stuff about how much the Americans like the Royal Family, they were keen having carried out that Revolution, not to establish their own Monarchy in its place. They still prefer to let the mugs in Britain pay for it, so they can simply visit the zoo when they feel like.

Boffy said...

Just on the "our" Royal Family bit too. Its pretty impossible to separate out this kind of reactionary nonsense from all of the Nationalism that goes with it, but in reality even that is a sham. There is nothing British about the "British" Royal Family from that perspective. William the Conqueror was a Norman from what is now that part of France, and whose ancestors were Norsemen. When the British Capitalists asserted their right to determine who sat on the throne in the Glorious Revolution, they brought in a Dutchman - William of Orange. After him, the house of Hanover in Germany were shipped in. The current Queen's family were from the German house of Saxburg-Gotha, changing their name at the time of the First World war for obvious reasons. Her husband is Greek.

Her Uncle, Edward was, of course, a Nazi, who was responsible for thousands of British soldiers losing their lives because he passed information to Hitler at the beginning of the War, when he was Britain's representative in France, that enabled Hitler's army to decide to move through the Arden. He continued to propagandise for Hitler when he was shipped off to the Caribbean. Anyone else would have been shot as a traitor.

In fact, Tony Robinson in a programme a couple of years ago showed how ludicrous the whole thing is, because although we are expected to beleive that they are in some way special because of what runs through their veins and is in their genes, the Royals have such a habit of shagging anything that moves - perhaps a good thing or the in breeding would mean they would be even worse than they are -that its impossible to know who the father of any of them actually is. His investigation showed that on that basis the real Monarch is some bloke living in the Outback in Australia.

If they really want to persist with this nonsense that they have a right to rule based on nothing other than who their father is, perhaps we should demand that all of them undergo DNA testing so we can see exactly who was sired by who. You never know Gary maybe you might be the real Monarch, and then you could launch a campaign with your retainers to get your just deserts in that field rather than limiting your sights to Stoke Central.

Finally, on the question of the butchery of old ruling classes. Unfortunately, that's a function of those old ruling classes being prepared to employ even worse butchery to hold on to power. The Americans had to resort to it to get rid of the murderous George III, the French Capitalists had to do the same to get rid of their Aristos.

Gary Elsby said...

I'm sure that if we looked hard enough, we could have Bofy shot for what he writes.
For the record, i've never ruled out the possibility that I may be the King of England, in fact, it has a nice ring to it.
But Boffy's history lesson leave a lot to be desired.
The slave owner, Washington (freemason) had more than enough of a job on his hands battling every other Town loyal to the King, but he did resist the call for him to be made King of America.What is wrong with the hereditary principle for a Monarchy? It is simple and holds no political power at all.
Unless of course, you live in North Korea and knock out acouple of heirs and spares!
WW1 did conjure up a number of disgraceful examples of mans inhumanity to man, but a particular disgrace is the awful act of tieing up a 15 year old boy to a post and being shot at dawn for 'being scared'.The British interpretation of treason is not a better example of Russian treason I think.
The price that was paid for the British to withdraw from the American continent (concentrate on Australia)was the promse of Washington to administer the colonies on freemasonary terms, which meant less Chiness, French and German influences, all carried out on behalf of Britain.

Boffy said...

So you want to fight for equality by having shot anyone who speaks out to challenge your support for a most inegalitarian principle! Gary should explain what is wrong with the history I quote to him rather than going off on an irrelevant exegesis about Washington being a Freemason and slaveholder - wasn't george III actually the biggest slaveholder in the Colonies anyway,and also a Freemason?

Gary's history of the American Revolution reminds me of the nonsense spoken about the Russian Revolution, the idea that it was a minority imposing istelf upon a majority. Does Gary really beleive that the majority of American Colonists supported the King? Does he really beleive that the American revolutionaries could have overcome not just a majority of "loyal" Colonists, but also the most powerful army in the world at that point? If these are the kinds of delusion from which he suffers, I have grave doubts about his account of proceedings within Stoke LP.

The idea that Monarchy has no power is ridiculous. David laws book shows it played a role even in the last Election, and he should remember its role in removing the demcoratically elected Government of Gough Whitlam in Australia in the 1970's. At the same time, it was sections of the Royal Family that the coup plotters in the military - a military that still theoretically swears ist allegiance to the Crown not to Government - looked to as a figurehead.

Gary's allusion to North Korea shows exactly what is wrong with the hereditary principle. One half-wit following another in succession. Actually, Gary, perhaps you are right, perhaps you shouldn't lose hope of being one of them.

And North Korea has another lesson for you. If you're criteria for Governing principles is that they are simple why limit yourself to Monarchy. A Dictator like Hitler should do just as well for you. Perhaps that is why Royals like the Queen's Uncle Edward found Nazism so appealing. Perhaps that is why he was prepared to see the deaths no just of one 15 year old boy shot for being scared, but the deaths of millions of 15 year old boys, and girls and younger at the hands of Hitler's murderous regime.

That you are prepared to support a principle that enables such people to occupy positions for no other reason than who their father is reputed to be should tell your supporters in Stoke everything they need to know about where your brand of personality and cult politics leads.

Gary Elsby said...

Hmmm, I wonder if being a socialist is contradictory to supporting the hereitary principle for the Royals? I don't think so.

It is a fact that every other Town and village in the Colonies was loyal to the Crown and the deal was that White Anglo Saxon Protestants (wasps) would rule if George redeployed his huge underused army (under Clinton) and not allow Cornwallis to use them.
Fremsonary ruled against an increasing German and Chinese impending majority, and also against Catholicism.
North Korea is not my invention, the hereditary principle goes on without me.
You seem to give the Royals a bit more political power than is agreed and you focus on David for his alleged liking of Fascism.
What of the jailbird MPs and bomber crews? The jails were full of them, including the potential leader of the Labour/Conservative Party.What about your hero, Bevan,founder of the NHS and staunch TU leader? Oops!
You do seem to have a rather unhealthy obsesion with putting down Royals whom, if I may be so bold, do a good job at opening shops and speaking at banquets on your behalf.
Tell me Boffy, it was a great act to shoot a Tsar, Tsarina, their daughters and son, yes?

Boffy said...

Gary you seem to have a very lax attitude to truth and facts.

1. You say its a fact that every other town and village supported the Monarchy at the time of the revolution. Can you provide evidence please. The actual evidence against is that were that true then the established British occupation, and administration, backed by the pwoer of the British Army could not have been defeated by smallholding farmers with rifles.

2. Your assertions about Freemasonry etc. read more like the fantasy of a Dan Brown Conspiracy novel than a serious piece of history.

3. The Hereditary principle does go on without you, as do most other things. Since when has that been a reason for offering up your support to it. Inequality goes on without you, Capitalism goes on without you, how long befoe you follow the logic of your position and defend those things too?

4. I didn't say anything about a Royal David. I did refer to the not alleged, but open support that Edward & Mrs Simpson gave to Nazi Germany, and the fact that the FBI had him under sureillance and had papers showing he passed information to the Germans about British and French plans, which enabled Hitler to decide to send the tanks through the Arden causing the loss of life of thousands of British and French soldiers. Having been packed off to the Caribean by Churchill he continued to give radio interviews proclaiming that Germany would win the war, and that Churchil should do a deal with Hitler.

5.Since when has Bevan been my hero??? I'm a Marxist! Read all of my stuff, and you will see that I do not hold the State capitalist NHS in high esteem, any more than I held the NCB under Ian McGregor! I probably have about the same attitude to it as those families who lost members at Stafford Hospital. If you can't get even easily checked facts like that right, what does it say about your other assertions?

6. But I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm doing you an injustice. I'm wondering whether you have been saying all this stuff tongue in cheek. After all who could talk about the Royals doing a good job opening shops and speaking at banquets on my behalf with a straight face????

7. But then no, because you persist with your obsession with the lives of a handful of Russian Royals without showing any concern for the lives of millions of ordinary Russians starved, tortured and killed by thos same Royals.

8. Was the act of killing the Tsar's family a good thing? Not particularly, but in War and revolutions people die. The responsibility for that lies exclusively with those in power who are prepared to use whatever force and grisly means are necessary to hold on to it. If you want to see examples of grizzliness by those ruling classes just look at the thousands of ordinary people tortured and murdered by the French ruling class after the defeat of the Paris Commune. In fact, it was largely due to that recent example that the Russian revolutionaries were keen not to make the same mistake of taking a lenient attitude to their oppressors, because they kn ew what would happen. The truth of that was shown by the cruelness of the Tsarist landlords who regained territory during the Civil War, and accounted for the fact that so many peasants as a result joined up with the Bolsheviks.

Gary Elsby said...

To be honest, I did write that they act on your behalf in jest;I thought thst might rattle your sabre a little!
Edward wss born David but his stage name was Edward VIII, the uncrowned King.
He was not the only member of the ruling classes to openly support Fascism, before the organised mass killings began (on both our parts to some extent).Hess landing in Scotland has never been truly cleared up with many witnesses testifying that he landed on a lit runway on the Duke's of Hamilton's estate. Witnesses also agreed that Churchill met him to listen to his terms. Churchill then began to lock everyone up, across the board.The Stoke MP, Minnie, would have gone too, if she had lived, so he locked up Mrs Guinness instead!Many Labour MPs were identified and many Hitlerist, business bankrollers were also on the hit list.
The American Revolution of the Colonies is not what is read about in the gung ho American journals and Library shelves. They have a duty to their own, and good luck to them.
The truth is the outcome remains the same and we couldn't have cared any less about America. How wrong we were.
A bunch of farmers? They were 'minute men' who could be called in 2 minutes to arms and were formidable guerrila fighters,an art learned by fighting the locals further west.
The British were used to line fighting and forming squares. This was their downfall and for the real record, it was the French who beat us in a perfectly arranged set piece that cornered Cornwallis, that left him isolated from superior forces in Halifax.
At the end, over 10% of all Colonists returned to England, loyal as always, to the Crown.
Washington could not have won it without superior French forces.
The slave owners wanted to wipe out the red indian and steal his land. It was King George that tried to stop them at the proclamation line, of which they were taxed on.Tea anybody?
We kept it white, anglo saxon and Protestant, which is considered a success for our natural ally.

Boffy said...

Gary,

You should try to keep your arguments at least consistent. Having previously told us that it was all soem conspiracy between Freemason's by which they agreed to let Washington take over to keep at bay French, Germans, Catholics and others, you now say that the Clonists victory was all down to a Catholic, French King's Army!!!!

The French did play a role, but its usually the pro-imperialists who argue that the Colonised could not possibly have won their freedom by their own actions, just as the lie is told now that slavery was abolished not because Blacks organised against it, but because white British politicians fought for it, or just as we are told that Russian workers and peasants didn't win their freedom from Tsarism, but it was all a coup by Bolsheviks.

The Minutemen were indeed effective guerillas, just as that other group of farmers who fought Britain - the Boers - were. But, they were still farmers. Its from this idea that the idea of a Citizen Militia is developed.

Whatever Edward VIII was christened, the fact remains he was a Nazi, and his actions caused the death of thousands of British soldiers, for which read workers. I see no reason to defend a principle that allows such people to occupy any position whatsoever.

Gary Elsby said...

It was the French that finally did it with superior Naval power. The British transferred the whole might of the Military in evicting the French from Canada.
The French lost out totally and it is wrong to think that Britain didn't know what it was doing. It then colonated Austrailia and most of the rest of important strategic points around the globe.White anglo saxon protetantism freemasonary, dominated the whole episode.If you want to say the workers won it, then I think you are being misled.