No Tears, No Joy –Elizabeth Windsor Faithfully Served the Rich, the Powerful and the Privileged Throughout Her Reign – She was No Friend of the Working Class or Oppressed

No Tears, No Joy –Elizabeth Windsor Faithfully Served the Rich, the Powerful and the Privileged Throughout Her Reign – She was No Friend of the Working Class or Oppressed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Post-Blog

The Death of A Monarch is the Ideal Opportunity To Be Rid of the Monarchy – No one is Born to Rule Over Us

James Connolly on the occasion of George V’s visit to Ireland in 1910

The Monarchy is, by definition, a reactionary institution based on the hereditary principle not merit. It is there to bind the poor to their fate, to give us the illusion that however rich or poor we are that we have something in common. In the inestimable words of Percy Shelley the Monarchy is “the String that Tied the Robber’s Bundle” (Shelley)

The Monarchy is the human face of the British Establishment in all its horrors.  An Establishment which, at this very moment, is forcing millions to choose between eating and heating as the energy companies are awash with money.

The idea that we have anything in common with the parasites who rule us, who steal the few assets that we had to hand over to their City friends, is cockamamie.  Patriotism is, in the words of Samuel Johnson, ‘the last refuge of the scoundrel’ and our rulers, as Boris Johnson amply demonstrated, complete scoundrels.

We are told that Liz ‘never put a foot wrong’ and it is true.  She did a wonderful job for those whose job it is to exploit the working class and poor.  Although even that is not strictly true. During the period immediately following Diana’s death, Elizabeth and her coterie were in danger of being seen to rejoice in the death of this uncontrollable former member of the ‘firm’.

Despite never having met Virginia Giuffre Andrew handed her over £10m

Not once, ever, did she express any sentiments in favour of those who are homeless, poor, destitute and without means but you can bet your bottom dollar that she and the other royal parasites expressed their contempt, behind closed doors of course, for those whom she reigned over.

The Queen was of course herself a very rich woman so it is natural that she should sympathise with fellow aristocrats. A tax dodger to the last, where she led others followed. She was happy to lobby the government to replace the Royal Yacht even whilst her subjects were sleeping on the streets. The idea of using her own wealth to purchase it probably never even occurred to her.

The Royal Family as they like to be known are a bunch of misfits, dysfunctional to the root. Not only the Prince of Paedophillia, Andrew but the racist Princess Pushy Michael of Kent who

sparked fury when she arrived at the Queen’s Christmas lunch in 2017 wearing a Blackamoor brooch on the day Meghan Markle was formally introduced to the Royal Family by Prince Harry. Blackamore brooches usually depict an African male as a servant, and are widely considered racist.

But it’s not about the Royals as individuals but what they represent.  The icing on the very ugly cake that is the British Establishment. In Ireland the Crown represented Unionism and the subjugation of the Catholics. In the Empire the Crown represented the super exploitation of India, Africa and Malaya. Not once did the Queen or her predecessors give voice to any criticism of the atrocities in India, Kenya and the West Indies.

Prince William IV defended the slave trade in the House of Lords and was known for his relations with African slaves

With the 200th centenary of the abolition of the slave trade the Queen failed to apologise either for the slave trade or the Monarchy’s role in opposing abolition.  In her paper, Uncovering Royal Perspectives on Slavery, Empire, and the Rights of Colonial Subjects, Dr Brooke Newman wrote:

Prince William, now the Duke of Clarence, emerged as a vocal defender of colonial slavery and a leading ally of the West India Committee in London. In 1799, in a reprinted and widely circulated pro-slavery speech delivered in the House of Lords, he referenced the long history of European involvement in the African slave trade and drew on his eyewitness knowledge of conditions in the Caribbean islands. According to the Duke of Clarence, the abolitionists had misjudged the effects of the slave trade on Africa and Africans and grossly misrepresented the treatment of enslaved men and women in the British sugar colonies. The abolitionist campaign to end the slave trade, he argued, was not only radical and misguided, like the actions of the fanatical French revolutionaries, but also deeply damaging to Britain’s national interests.

The Duke of Clarence later became King William IV. In her tributes to the abolitionist William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Windsor passed over her own family’s role in delaying the abolition of slavery.

We are told that the Elizabeth kept her opinions to herself. Perhaps but there is no doubt on which side of the class divide she stood.  She personally invited her blood-stained relation, the King of Bahrain to attend the Royal Windsor Horse Show. When his largely Shi’ite subjects rose up against his bloody rule in the Arab Spring, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa not only set the military on them but he had the doctors and nurses who tended the wounded  tortured. Yet Elizabeth Windsor had no problem entertaining King Hamad.

Gough Whitlam, Australian Labour Prime Minister, was ousted by the Queen’s man in Canberra

When Australia elected a radical Labour Prime Minister Gough Whitlam it was the Queen’s Governor-General Sir John Kerr who used Royal Prerogative to overthrow him in a constitutional coup d’etat and put in the conservative Malcolm Fraser. When the House of Representatives passed a motion of no confidence in Fraser, Kerr simply refused to see the Speaker of the House.

So we can see that when there is a constitutional crisis the role of the Monarchy can become extremely powerful as it nearly did when the Queen prorogued parliament, on advice from Boris Johnson, during the Brexit crisis.  In that case the Supreme Court overturned her order.

The Monarchy is anything but apolitical. It is intensely political and that is why BBC and ITV are currently boring us to death with interminal programmes about the death of Elizabeth Windsor. Fortunately this is likely to have the same effect as occurred with the death of Philip Windsor when there were a record number of complaints about the saturation coverage which was carried on every TV channel.

The close identification between the monarchy and the military is itself a threat to democracy. In times of crisis, as was signalled during Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, the Generals could declare their loyalty, not to Parliament or the people but the Monarch.  After all their oath of loyalty is not to the people but the Crown.

However lest this blog be considered unduly critical even the most hard hearted would have sympathised with Elizabeth sitting alone in Westminster Abbey after the death of her husband Philip while Boris Johnson was throwing parties in Downing Street.  But that incident in itself demonstrates that our present rulers lack any gravitas or substance. They are as cheap as the alcohol that they packed into that suitcase smuggled into a Downing Street Party.

It says a lot about the times we live in that Boris Johnson has been succeeded by ‘thick Lizzy’ whose meeting with Elizabeth seems to have given the coup de grace to Elizabeth.

As King Charles III ascends the throne we should perhaps remember what happened to the first King Charles!  A Republic is in sight.

Tony Greenstein

 

 

 

3 Comments

  1. Steve Lawless

    Spot on.

    Reply
  2. Una

    Great article. I totally agree with you. It’s time for a republic.

    Reply
  3. Dorothy Sommerville

    Very truthful
    The function of the British monarchy should be made known to our younger generation.
    The true history of the British monarchy should taught in schools.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Share This