The Jubilee is a Celebration of 70 Years of Elizabeth Windsor Living At Our Expense
The Jubilee is a Celebration of 70 Years of Elizabeth Windsor Living At Our Expense
The Monarchy is the String that Ties the Robber’s Bundle – We Have to Make Sure That There is No Charles III
Platinum Jubilee – The Great British distraction
I imagine that like me you are sick to the backteeth of the servile, sycophantic, fawning tone of BBC broadcasters and news readers as they compete with each other to find the most obsequious and servile adjectives to describe a seriously dysfunctional family.
Their purpose being to convince us that the idea of a hereditary head of state is somehow compatible with democracy. Even the bourgeois kind. One wonders whether there are any other professions – teaching, mathematics, history, which use the hereditary principle as well? Perhaps they operate it at the BBC too, which might account for quite a lot!
For the past 2 weeks, whether we like or not, we have been bombarded with messages about how grateful we should be that Elizabeth Windsor has agreed to live a life of unparalleled luxury at our expense, aided by a subsidies of over £100m annually.
Even the right-wing Tax Payer’s Alliance isn’t happy with the amount of money spent on the Royal Family. They wrote:
However, there are also clauses in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 which are completely unfair on British taxpayers.
The Act includes a provision that prevents a fall in the value of the Sovereign Grant. It was put into force this year when the Crown Estate portfolio fell by more than £500 million in value, after land and property investments went sour during the pandemic. Instead of taking it on the chin like every other business owner who has seen their assets hit due to covid-19, the taxpayer has bailed the royals out – ensuring that the Sovereign Grant will not fall in value for the next financial year….
The bailout by HM Treasury means that money that would have been spent on public services has now been diverted to the royals. This is expected to give the monarch a grant of £86.3 million for the year 2020-2021. Despite the Act guaranteeing the royals will never make a loss, the Sovereign Grant has ballooned in size, giving them year on year increases for the past decade above levels of inflation. In 2016-17 the grant was worth £42.8 million, which steeply jumped to £76.1 million in 2017-18 and continued to rise handsomely until this year. The royal family have a rising income under this system…
Today’s royals have hardly been as thrifty, showing little regard for value for money. The Sovereign Grant financial report uncovered that Prince Andrew squandered £16k on a private jet travelling to Londonderry from Belfast in his capacity as Patron of the Open Championship at Royal Portrush Golf Club in July. As eighth in line to the throne, ‘Air Miles Andy’ could have set an example by going on an affordable airline instead of a private jet.
Forbes magazine estimated the Queen’s net worth at around £325 million) in 2011, while an analysis by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index put it at about £275 million) in 2015. In 2012 the Sunday Times estimated the Queen’s wealth as being £310 million and that year the Queen received a Guinness World Record as Wealthiest Queen. The Sunday Times Rich List 2015 estimated her wealth at £340 million. She was number one on the list when it began in 1989, with a reported wealth of £5.2 billion, which included state assets that were not hers personally, (approximately £13.2 billion in today’s value). (Wikipedia)
If this was any other family they would have child psychologists and social workers crawling all over them, to say nothing of the long arm of the law.
It is common knowledge that Andrew Windsor raped and molested girls half his age and more who were being trafficked by a convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his madam Ghislaine Maxwell. After all no one gives more than £10m to someone they’ve never met, as happened with Virginia Giuffre.
After all Andrew had a cast iron alibi since at the time he was supposed to be with Virginia. He was entertaining his daughters at a pizza parlour as well as suffering from an inability to sweat!
The Real Purpose of the Monarchy was Spelt Out Over 200 Years by the radical poet, Percy Shelley when he wrote that the Monarchy was the ‘string that ties the robbers’ bundle.’
The Monarchy above all have a political function, not in a party political sense but as the symbol of an ugly, undemocratic British state in which a tiny handful of people own the vast majority of wealth whilst millions of people are living in or near the poverty line.
Three in a marriage was a crowd!
The top 1% in society own 25% of total wealth and despite exhortations for us to be ‘patriotic’ they have no hesitation in stashing it in offshore islands beyond the reach of the tax authorities.
It is no accident that the Conservative Party, which is dedicated to a programme of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich, is the most overtly pro-Monarchist party. Boris Johnson is happy to take £20 per week from universal credit claimants whilst at the same time he is falling over himself to spend £250 million on a new Royal Yacht.
Those who demonise ‘benefit scroungers’ are more than happy to hand over hundreds of millions of pounds to an already vastly rich family.
As Seamus Milne wrote the purpose of the Monarchy, above all, is a political one. In times of constitutional crisis they have potentially enormous power because the organs of the state, the army and police owe their duty to them not the people.
This is called the Royal Prerogative and it was demonstrated when Johnson prorogued i.e. cancelled the ability of parliament to sit. The Queen was happy to go along with Boris but the Supreme Court decided otherwise.
In 1975 this was demonstrated when the Labour Prime Minister of Australia was removed by the Queen’s representative, Governor-General Sir John Kerr. As John Pilger has shown, this was done in co-ordination with MI6 and the CIA. The CIA were apoplectic that an American base in Pine Springs might be closed down. Australia has historically been the US’s closest ally in the Pacific, as we can see today with the Aukus Pact aimed at China.
The BBC claimed that the Queen didn’t know of Gough Whitlam’s removal. She didn’t have to know. She appointed the Governor-General who used the reserve powers of the crown to overthrow an elected government. What the Crown did in Australia they can do here.
When people drool over and fantasise about the Royals and what they get up to, with the encouragement of the tabloids, they are being shown the ‘human’ side of an ugly family and an undemocratic institution.
The Monarchy is not about the tantrums of Price Harry or the peccadilloes of Andrew or the tree hugging of Charles. Nor is it about how Princess Diana was treated 20 years ago when she and Charles separated.
It is about the British state being represented in human form as a family that British people can identify with, for good or bad. The Royal Family stand above all for the idea that however rich or poor you are you can identify with them as a symbol of national unity.
But Britain today is not what it was 70 years ago. More than one in four (27%) British people now support abolishing the monarchy. As Republic note, support for retaining the monarchy stands at just 60%, well below the 70-75% previously reported.
A YouGov poll carried out for anti-monarchy group Republic found that 41% of 18-24 year olds want the monarchy abolished whilst only 31% want to keep them. Across all age ranges that figure stands at 27%.
Labour voters are evenly split, with 44% wanting to keep the monarchy compared with 43% favouring abolition. Graham Smith of Republic was quoted as saying that:
“When looked at alongside other polls in recent years, it appears support for the monarchy is on a slow puncture.”
“Just ten years ago monarchists were consistently boasting that three quarters of the population supported the royals, now support stands at just 60%.”
Of course a republic in itself is no panacea. The United States and France are hardly more democratic or egalitarian than Britain despite being republics. A democratic state also has to be a socialist state where wealth and wealth production is in the hands of the people and where the economic levers of power are not in the hands of a tiny minority. But there is no doubt that the removal of this rich, privileged and selfish family will be a step in the right direction.
Nor is there any need for an elected head of state, a kind of elected dictator. The problem we have is an unaccountable Prime Minister and Parliament as Boris Johnson is demonstrating with a raft of Bills to increase Police powers and clamp down on demonstrations and trade unions’ right to strike.