Charles III is not our King – he is the King of Truss, Starmer and the British Establishment
Charles III is not our King – he is the King of Truss, Starmer and the British Establishment
Charles is Booed in Cardiff and Celtic Fans Chant ‘If you hate the Royal Family Clap your Hands’ as the Wheels Begin to Come Off the Royal Pantomime
A loyal tribute to Elizabeth Windsor by British singer song writer Leon Rosselson
It is often said of the Queen that she did a good job. And in one sense that is true. She did do a good job but the question is for whom did she work? Certainly no one who lived in the colonies benefited and it is difficult to see how anyone who is poor, on the streets or working class is any the richer.
On the other hand there is no doubt, judging by the million or so fools who spent 24 hours or more to see her coffin, that the late Queen performed a very useful function for the class that she came from. A role not dissimilar to that of religion.
Marx didn’t simply describe religion as the opium of the masses but also as the heart of a heartless world, the soul of a soulless world. Royalty performs a vital political and social function in binding the poor and oppressed to their oppressors in a sham show of national unity that is underpinned by the honours system.
The honours system itself is divided into ordinary and common OBEs, CBEs and MBEs (all of which refer to the Empire) up to the the Most Nobel Order of the Garter, of which there are only 34 at any one time, all of whom are chosen personally by the sovereign. In this way, however rich or poor you are you can identify with the monarch.
That is why virtually every business of any size adorned itself with the image of Elizabeth Windsor. The Monarchy provides social stability as well as a back stop against revolution.
Despite all this there is a growing mood of republicanism amongst the young in particular who are almost equally divided on whether or not to have a republic. However much the BBC rams the idea of an unelected monarchy down our throats it offends against democratic instincts and reeks of class snobbery and contempt.
The Monarchy is depicted as the ideal family, just like you and me however there is nothing ordinary about the monarchy from the past-times they indulge in (hunting, shooting) to the company they keep.
Despite being told that the Monarchy has no influence politically this is not true. The royals vetted at least 1,062 laws during Elizabeth’s reign in order to ensure that they didn’t hurt her interests.
Whereas it is well known that Royal Assent is needed when a bill becomes law very few people know that the Monarch’s consent is needed before legislation can be approved by parliament. The website of the royal family describes it as “a long established convention”.
Documents in the National Archives suggest that the Consent Process enabled Elizabeth Windsor to lobby for changes before legislation was tabled. Thomas Adams, a constitutional law expert at Oxford University said that these documents revealed “the kind of influence over legislation that lobbyists would only dream of”. It gave Liz “substantial influence” over draft laws that could affect her. See Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth
The Monarchy in the form of Prince Charles played a large part in the canonisation of Jimmy Savile. He was also knighted. In a memo addressed to the royals in 1989, and titled ‘Guidelines for members of the Royal Family and their staffs’, Savile claimed he was “in the palaces on a regular basis”.
Under ‘personal observations’, Savile stated that he was ‘well-placed’ to make observations and comment on the Royal Family’s image due to the access he had inside their residences writing:
“Because I get into St James’s Palace and Buckingham Palace on a regular basis, one thing is becoming quite obvious. There is a strong movement now towards some members of the family and their staff towards an… attitude.”
Charles had gone out of his way to seek out Savile’s advice and help in repairing the monarchy’s image and reputation. Because if there is one thing the ‘firm’ is careful about is its image.
As Walter Bagehot argued the monarchy needed mystique. “Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.” Charles has done quite the opposite. He allowed cameras into the accession council, where he made his oaths. He has already had two public hissy fits involving malfunctioning pens, which have gone viral. Charles finds it difficult, unlike his mother, to keep his mouth shut.
Power is exercised most effectively behind closed doors not in public. As Media Lens pointed out we are quick to ridicule countries where there is a cult of the personality –
‘those poor lost souls who glorify leaders with hagiographic portraits and statues; and militarised patriotic festivals and grand commemorative events’.
This type of thing happens in Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China and Kim Jong-un’s North Korea not in Britain. Yet how does one describe hundreds of thousands of people queuing for over a day to catch a glimpse of the coffin of a woman they never knew?
The BBC naturally was determined not to be outdone in its servile, sycophantic prose. Royal correspondent Jonny Dymond wittered:
‘This is the moment history stops; for a minute, an hour, for a day or a week; this is the moment history stops.
If history stopped, then time itself must have stopped! A quite remarkable feat, even for a monarch.
‘Grief is the price we pay for love’ (Daily Telegraph)
‘Thank you’ (Daily Mirror’)
‘Our beloved Queen is dead’ (Daily Express)
‘We loved you Ma’am’ (The Sun)
As Media Lens asked ‘Does The Sun have any idea what the word ‘love’ means?’ This is the paper that marked the death of 96 football fans at the Hillsborough Stadium with the headline ‘The Truth’ alleging that fans picked the pockets of the victims whilst urinating on the ‘brave cops’.
Nor was the Guardian any better. The day after Windsor’s death it led with 19 pages on the Queen plus a 20-page supplement. Columnist, Gaby Hinsliff, wrote a piece referring to Elizabeth Windsor’s ‘grandmotherly manner’, ‘female power’, ‘rare trick for a woman’, ‘awoman in charge’, ‘“ultimate feminist”’, ‘a legacy for women’, etc.
Hinsliff’s unctuous prose managed 14 retweets and 72 likes.
Not to be outdone Sir Keir Starmer, Knight Commander of the Order of Bath and Leader of the ‘Opposition’, declared:
‘For seventy years, Queen Elizabeth II stood as the head of our country. But in spirit, she stood amongst us.’
One wonders just how many homeless people felt her spirit as they bedded down for the night. Perhaps those weighing up how to heat their home immediately felt her presence besides them?
Not content with this nonsense Starmer told us that:
‘as the world changed around her, this dedication became the still point of our turning world.’
How many of you felt that your world revolved around Liz Windsor?
But all this servile nonsense aims to enable the new King to emerge, as if by magic, like a butterfly from its chrysalis. And history therefore has to be rewritten. It is no accident that the BBC Panorama Interview with Princess Diana has been suppressed.
The BBC have pretended that Diana was tricked into the interview, even though she herself declared at the time that she was happy with it. The BBC is asserting its copyright to prevent it being shown anywhere. There is nothing like censorship to help change the narrative. However you can still see it on my blog, at least for the moment!
As Andrew Morton, whose 1992 book Diana: Her True Story exposed Charles adultery with ‘Queen’ Camilla said:
“It is a supreme irony that it is her son who has led the calls to posthumously muzzle Diana, to silence her, to prevent her from being heard, from saying what she spent her life trying to articulate”
As the BBCs former Director-General Tony Hall admitted:
The first investigation we did before Christmas under Tim Gardam talked to all the people concerned and produced a letter where she said very clearly that she had been shown no documents by Martin Bashir, she was not made aware of anything by Martin Bashir that she didn’t already know and she had no regrets, underlined, by the interview. It is quite interesting that Lord Dyson himself says that an interview of some sort would probably have taken place anyway. At that point in our inquiries, in our investigations with Tim Gardam, we came to an end that there was no case to answer.
In now trying to silence what her mother wanted to reveal, Prince William is acting with contempt for her. But that too is part of the price to be paid for keeping the royal show going.
As for Andrew, the death of Elizabeth Windsor has been quite fortuitous in his attempt to achieve rehabilitation. Instead of mourning in private, Andrew was one of the 4 royals who formed the vigil around her coffin. In full military uniform it might be added.
Expunged from memory are the stories of Prince Charles with carrier bags full of notes donated by a kind Qatari politician. And why, in this age of Internet banking, did Charles not have the money sent electronically? Guess it was his addiction to all things old-fashioned!
Also forgotten is how Charles protected the serial child abuser Peter Ball, Bishop of Lewes, who eventually served half of a 32 month prison sentence after the Police originally let him off with a Caution. Charles wrote to him after he had been cautioned saying that
“I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”
There is no record of Charles having expressed any sympathy for Neil Todd, one of Ball’s victims, who killed himself in 2012.
In classic Establishment understatement, the Official Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse described Charles’ support for Ball and the Duchy of Cornwall buying a house for him to rent as ‘misguided’.
Charles maintained a correspondence with Ball for more than two decades after Ball’s 1992 caution for gross indecency. Charles told the inquiry that he did not realise the truth behind allegations against Ball. Most people understand that accepting a Caution means accepting one is guilty. But not Charles. That child abuse offences were dealt with by a Caution suggests Police complicity and cover up.
Charles explanation as to why he corresponded with Ball was that it was the “polite” thing to do but the inquiry found the replies were “suggestive of cordiality rather than mere politeness”. Charles explanation, that he did not know the exact details of the allegations, was not believed by the inquiry which found that he did not try to find out.
All this however will be hushed up and forgotten because it’s now a case of ‘God Save the King’ and the Establishment of which he is such an integral part.
Or as the old saying goes ‘Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.’