What Future is There for a Politicised Monarchy?


D.J. Webb

We have had a lot of Royal news in recent weeks, whether it be the antics of Prince Harry, or the death of Prince Philip. It seems a suitable moment to take stock, given that the Royal family appears to be evolving rapidly, and not in a healthy direction. But maybe I should begin with a brief statement of why the Monarchy would be important to libertarians. Libertarianism is not just an economic doctrine, one of wanting to be left alone by the state—although that is largely admirable as a reflex; it also rests on cultural underpinnings. If we become Pakistan or Somali, or, more likely, a hodgepodge of those and many other countries, the desire for a certain relationship between state and society, one based on traditional English values such as free speech and freedom of expression, will become obsolete. Why would incomers share the views that have traditionally been associated with the Anglo-Saxon peoples? There is no future for a free society without a recognition that this is our country, and that our way of life will not survive mass immigration and the imposition of political correctness.

From that perspective, the Queen’s role is, not just to make anodyne statements, but to defend our customs—and, logically, that means defending our nation too. It’s written clearly in the Coronation Oath: the Queen should govern us “by our laws and customs”. It is argued by many, desperately clutching at straws, that the Queen spurns the Coronation Oath because she is advised to do so (by people who did not take the Coronation Oath, and who may not legally advise the Queen to violate her Oath). I would like to feel that, behind the scenes, she objected to our entry into the European Union (or its predecessors), and strongly objected to mass immigration, political correctness, hate speech laws, and even things like the elimination of double jeopardy and the weakening of jury trials. But you would be misguided if you thought the Queen had done any of those things.

The Queen and Prince Philip

Instead, we have the spectacle of a Royal house that is seeking to ingratiate itself with ethnic minorities to ensure its own survival, even when we, the British people, are becoming a minority in our own country (currently slated for 2066 according to the best demographic projections). Prince Philip, in some way, appeared to give a degree of hope to British people that there was someone close to the Throne who did not follow all the latest fashionable views on race and speech codes, and so was a surprisingly popular figure. This is simply because he was prepared to crack the odd joke that had a racial theme in what was actually a fairly good-natured way, however maliciously portrayed in the media. However, I think his role is largely misunderstood. He was portrayed as a gaffer, someone who would always put his foot in it, and the Royal family passed this off as “Philip being Philip”. This largely conceded the Left’s argument that the humorous comments he made were offensive and unacceptable from anyone other than an uncontrollable old man. In its own way, the Philip phenomenon cemented the politically correct speech codes, because the Palace never once argued that the comments he made were free speech and free expression that everyone should engage in.

The Queen herself has been much more in tune with the political elite. Her Christmas Day broadcast 2004 celebrated the fact that English people have become a minority in London. She said: “I particularly enjoyed a story I heard the other day about an overseas visitor to Britain who said the best part of his visit had been travelling from Heathrow into Central London on the Tube…. At each stop children were getting on and off—they were of every ethnic and religious background, some with scarves or turbans, some talking quietly, others playing and occasionally misbehaving together—completely at ease and trusting one another. How lucky you are, said the visitor, to live in a country where your children can grow up this way”.

This is a direct intervention in politics in support of our national dispossession. John Stuart Mill in Chapter XVI of his Considerations on Representative Government took the opposite view to the Queen, arguing that free institutions were possible only in a country not riven by inter-ethnic and multicultural strife. By intervening in this way, the Queen showed that she believes English people should become a minority in this country, and thus it was a political statement of the type we were always told the Queen could not engage in.

In May 2011, the Queen made even more jarring comments in a visit to the Republic of Ireland, a visit it was reported the Queen had been angling to make for many years. Did she condemn the involvement of the Irish state in funding and training terrorists in Northern Ireland? No, she didn’t. What she did say was:

“Indeed so much of this visit reminds us of the complexity of our history, its many layers and traditions, but also the importance of forbearance and conciliation, of being able to bow to the past but not be bound by it. Of course the relationship has not always been straightforward; nor has the record over the centuries been entirely benign. It is a sad and regrettable reality that through history our islands have experienced more than their fair share of heartache, turbulence and loss. These events have touched us all, many of us personally, and are a painful legacy. We can never forget those who have died or been injured or their families. To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy. With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all”.

This was all couched in careful language. The Queen did not state directly that Britain was the source of the “not entirely benign record”, and neither did she say what it was that Britain should have done differently or not at all. These comments were interpreted in Ireland as an apology for the Irish Famine—as if a potato blight is something Britain should apologise for. In fact, Britain did extend assistance to the starving in Ireland at a time when there was no welfare state, and did more than, for example, Finland did in the 1866-68 famine there, when one-twelfth of the population were allowed to die because the Finnish government worried that borrowing money for famine relief would raise interest rates. Whatever the rights and wrongs, Irish history should be seen in nuanced historical context, as with all historical events, and not used to perform morality plays in the present in the way the Irish government uses the Famine. In previous historical periods, Britain behaved much as was expected of governments of the time, and the issue is just history. Are we to extract an apology from the Italian government for the mistreatment of Boadicea and her daughters in the first century AD?

I would like to ask the Queen to clarify whether she was accusing Queen Victoria of genocide in Ireland. Under no circumstances should the Queen mouth IRA propaganda during a visit to Ireland, particularly as in the most recent period, 1969 to the present day, it is the Republic of Ireland that has behaved badly. They have funded terrorism in a neighbouring country, while becoming rich on the back of our money, cycled to them through the EU, and are currently engaged in international diplomacy to ensure that our Brexit is a flop. They may even be seeking a resumption of communal violence in Ulster. The balance of fault since 1969 is skewed against the Irish government. Why should we apologise to them?

For these reasons, I cannot agree that the Queen “hasn’t put a foot wrong”. She has not angered the political/media elite, granted, but has moved towards distinctly anti-British public positions, and has been more than happy to enact our national dispossession via the European Communities Act and various immigration acts. One has to ask whether the Queen has always been an anti-imperialist. Surely, as the daughter of the King-Emperor she once has different views?

Prince Charles and Princess Diana

Overlooking the failed marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana, one that means that the current Royal family bears no relation to Queen Victoria’s attempt to portray domestic bliss, for example, in the famous portrait of her family by Franz Winterhalter. Diana, as a member of the aristocracy, was expected to know her place and conduct herself with decorum, but she played to the media gallery, not just in her accounts of her private life, but also in her pursuit of political causes. These included kissing AIDS patients in order to propagate the view that AIDS could not be transmitted easily and her campaign against landmines in African countries. Both were issues that placed her on the NGO left of the political debate. Neither was anything the wife of the heir to the throne should have engaged in. It is easy to see how the shenanigans of the Sussexes derive in part from Prince Harry’s attempts to be like his mother.

Prince Charles has in certain ways been a conservative public figure. He speaks impeccable English, supports the Prayer Book, and also opposes modern architecture, although, in keeping with his position, admiring our architectural heritage should be as far as he allows himself to go, without entering into public debates on what is a political/cultural issue. His desire to become Defender of Faith, and not Defender of the Faith, is a much more objectional stance. He signals that he will perjure himself by taking the Coronation Oath, and thereby openly supports the influx of Muslims into our country. He apparently believes that a religion based on the mores of 7th century Arabia is an equal path to God as the Christian religion—a view that has traditionally been regarded in this country as heretical. I would like to ask him if he supported Mohamed’s ruling that the rape of women and girls in warfare by his Muslim soldiers was OK (this ruling was handed down by the “prophet” during warfare with a tribe called the Banu Al-Mustaliq). Such multicultural views seem designed to facilitate the survival of Prince Charles’ Royal house even while ensuring that the British nation itself does not survive.

Prince Charles’ nakedly political intervention into the climate change debate is also foolish. Not only has there been only a fraction of the warming predicted by climate change models 20 years ago, despite the fact that much more carbon dioxide has been emitted, the ultimate role of human agency in this remains disputed. The planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles over millennia. Most of the alarmist claims made by the environmentalists have been disproven. The polar ice cap was said to be due to melt long ago, as was snow cover on the Himalayas. Claims that Australia’s bush fires were due to global warming sit ill with maps showing that the coastal areas where the fires took place were cooler than normal, and only the interior of the continent actually hotter. In the end, no-one would object to new energy sources including hydrogen as long as they could be utilised in a way that was as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, and as long as they provided a reliable source of heating that did not require us to adjust to indoor temperatures much lower than we are used to. The rush to Net Zero by 2050 will cost hundreds of billions. It would be much better to explore new techologies and adopt them only when they can be done cheaply.

Prince Harry and his US wife

It may be better to discuss Prince Harry first, as this will allow me to contrast Prince William with him. Harry and Meghan have openly adopted woke religion in a way that has severed their connection with the English people. Laughably false claims of racial prejudice that Meghan claims to have experienced have done serious damage to our country’s international reputation. The way they use the mental health issue to claim moral authority for their decision to flounce off to California is also contemptible. The wider cultural context is that such claims are deemed to be automatically true. Anyone denying that Meghan felt suicidal is told he is bullying the mentally ill. In some ways, Harry is a disappointment, as his record in the Armed Forces, and previous reports of his high jinks and comments he has made similar to those made by Prince Philip (including referring to the Pakistani origin of one his military friends) suggested that he was less caught up at one stage in the virtue signalling.

An unpleasant consequence of the Harry and Meghan saga is that the Queen is considering appointing a race co-ordinator at the Palace, a development likely to racialise the whole Palace operation. Such people are employed to find offence, and hunt it out, and so we are likely to be regaled with a constant stream of nonsensical stories about “racist ladies in waiting” and the like. This sort of thing just adds to the oppressive cultural environment, whereby words are deemed offensive, and people are not expected to brush off insults, and yet insults made to English people are regarded as harmless all the same.

Any hope in Prince William and Kate?

It would be nice to believe the Royal family will settle down with William and Kate. However, there are signs that this is not the case. While William has not flounced off to California, he does speak the woke lingo of his brother. William was reported as denouncing racism in football—a ludicrous concept, given that this is the most multiracial area of public life in the UK. More to the point, this is our country, and so, although black people are well represented in football, there is no reason why this has to be the case. If you go to China, most football players are Chinese for some reason that Prince William can’t quite put his finger on, but I can (because it’s China).

William may have also made a major mistake calling for more racial diversity in Britain’s BAFTA film awards, resulting in an award being made the next year to a black actor now accused of sexual harassment. I don’t think such claims should be given the credence they are, without stronger proof, but it does show that calling for a tickbox racialised culture could backfire on the monarchy. William should not be getting into these political causes.

Kate made a show of visiting a memorial, or flower display, for a woman raped and murdered by a (white) policeman in London, an extraordinarily rare occurrence, if you think about it. She sent little signals that she was on the side of the feminists. But she has never intervened in this way where the perpetrators were black, and has never said a word about the gang-rape of tens of thousands of underage English girls by Pakistani rape gangs.

The Future of the Windsors

The departure of Harry has led Charles and William to consider the family’s future. This discussion is being held in-house, without any public input or direct input by politicians. However, it is clear that the Windsors are responding to the Harry and Meghan affair by Meghanising or Oprahising the monarchy. One wonders why Harry has left if William has decided to pursue the same list of fashionable causes Harry and Meghan are pursuing in America. The family appears to be chasing good press headlines, given that the media elite are heavily invested in a list of causes including anti-racism, anti-sexism, gay rights, transgender identity and climate change.

However, these causes are much more patchily supported in the population at large. Where most people do, for example, oppose racial hatred and harassment, the definition given to such concepts can often veer to the extremes in a way that the public do not support. If you oppose the gang rape of English girls by Muslim gangs, that is said to be “racism”. If you believe that adults who wish to have sex-change operations should be allowed to, then the campaign groups who are driving social change argue that you should accept puberty blocking drugs given to children and the replacement of women by men in women’s sports. But worse than these things is the fact that the boundaries of public discussion are narrowing by the nanosecond, where views that the majority of the public hold are suddenly being declared unacceptable with an alarming frequency. The Royals are doing everything they can to drive this agenda, in a way that appears to lend moral authority to the woke causes they patronise.

The result of this WWW (the Woke-Washing of the Windsors) is to give further encouragement to the politicians and media in their determination to criminalise speech, and to use state power, including the police, to harass those who don’t share the allegedly correct views the Windsors hold. From being a family that represented the best of Britain and a symbol of the whole nation, the Royals are becoming just another representative of the new sneering Blairites who staff all other public institutions. I can’t see any place for the Windsors in a future free Britain, because they have now firmly allied themselves against our nation. If we end up a minority in this country by 2066, the Queen will have done her bit to make that happen. She is fluent in French, so she must understand the phrase après moi, le déluge!

What Future is There for a Politicised Monarchy?

We have had a lot of Royal news in recent weeks, whether it be the antics of Prince Harry, or the death of Prince Philip. It seems a suitable moment to take stock, given that the Royal family appears to be evolving rapidly, and not in a healthy direction. But maybe I should begin with a brief statement of why the Monarchy would be important to libertarians. Libertarianism is not just an economic doctrine, one of wanting to be left alone by the state—although that is largely admirable as a reflex; it also rests on cultural underpinnings. If we become Pakistan or Somali, or, more likely, a hodgepodge of those and many other countries, the desire for a certain relationship between state and society, one based on traditional English values such as free speech and freedom of expression, will become obsolete. Why would incomers share the views that have traditionally been associated with the Anglo-Saxon peoples? There is no future for a free society without a recognition that this is our country, and that our way of life will not survive mass immigration and the imposition of political correctness.

From that perspective, the Queen’s role is, not just to make anodyne statements, but to defend our customs—and, logically, that means defending our nation too. It’s written clearly in the Coronation Oath: the Queen should govern us “by our laws and customs”. It is argued by many, desperately clutching at straws, that the Queen spurns the Coronation Oath because she is advised to do so (by people who did not take the Coronation Oath, and who may not legally advise the Queen to violate her Oath). I would like to feel that, behind the scenes, she objected to our entry into the European Union (or its predecessors), and strongly objected to mass immigration, political correctness, hate speech laws, and even things like the elimination of double jeopardy and the weakening of jury trials. But you would be misguided if you thought the Queen had done any of those things.

The Queen and Prince Philip

Instead, we have the spectacle of a Royal house that is seeking to ingratiate itself with ethnic minorities to ensure its own survival, even when we, the British people, are becoming a minority in our own country (currently slated for 2066 according to the best demographic projections). Prince Philip, in some way, appeared to give a degree of hope to British people that there was someone close to the Throne who did not follow all the latest fashionable views on race and speech codes, and so was a surprisingly popular figure. This is simply because he was prepared to crack the odd joke that had a racial theme in what was actually a fairly good-natured way, however maliciously portrayed in the media. However, I think his role is largely misunderstood. He was portrayed as a gaffer, someone who would always put his foot in it, and the Royal family passed this off as “Philip being Philip”. This largely conceded the Left’s argument that the humorous comments he made were offensive and unacceptable from anyone other than an uncontrollable old man. In its own way, the Philip phenomenon cemented the politically correct speech codes, because the Palace never once argued that the comments he made were free speech and free expression that everyone should engage in.

The Queen herself has been much more in tune with the political elite. Her Christmas Day broadcast 2004 celebrated the fact that English people have become a minority in London. She said: “I particularly enjoyed a story I heard the other day about an overseas visitor to Britain who said the best part of his visit had been travelling from Heathrow into Central London on the Tube…. At each stop children were getting on and off—they were of every ethnic and religious background, some with scarves or turbans, some talking quietly, others playing and occasionally misbehaving together—completely at ease and trusting one another. How lucky you are, said the visitor, to live in a country where your children can grow up this way”.

This is a direct intervention in politics in support of our national dispossession. John Stuart Mill in Chapter XVI of his Considerations on Representative Government took the opposite view to the Queen, arguing that free institutions were possible only in a country not riven by inter-ethnic and multicultural strife. By intervening in this way, the Queen showed that she believes English people should become a minority in this country, and thus it was a political statement of the type we were always told the Queen could not engage in.

In May 2011, the Queen made even more jarring comments in a visit to the Republic of Ireland, a visit it was reported the Queen had been angling to make for many years. Did she condemn the involvement of the Irish state in funding and training terrorists in Northern Ireland? No, she didn’t. What she did say was:

“Indeed so much of this visit reminds us of the complexity of our history, its many layers and traditions, but also the importance of forbearance and conciliation, of being able to bow to the past but not be bound by it. Of course the relationship has not always been straightforward; nor has the record over the centuries been entirely benign. It is a sad and regrettable reality that through history our islands have experienced more than their fair share of heartache, turbulence and loss. These events have touched us all, many of us personally, and are a painful legacy. We can never forget those who have died or been injured or their families. To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy. With the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all”.

This was all couched in careful language. The Queen did not state directly that Britain was the source of the “not entirely benign record”, and neither did she say what it was that Britain should have done differently or not at all. These comments were interpreted in Ireland as an apology for the Irish Famine—as if a potato blight is something Britain should apologise for. In fact, Britain did extend assistance to the starving in Ireland at a time when there was no welfare state, and did more than, for example, Finland did in the 1866-68 famine there, when one-twelfth of the population were allowed to die because the Finnish government worried that borrowing money for famine relief would raise interest rates. Whatever the rights and wrongs, Irish history should be seen in nuanced historical context, as with all historical events, and not used to perform morality plays in the present in the way the Irish government uses the Famine. In previous historical periods, Britain behaved much as was expected of governments of the time, and the issue is just history. Are we to extract an apology from the Italian government for the mistreatment of Boadicea and her daughters in the first century AD?

I would like to ask the Queen to clarify whether she was accusing Queen Victoria of genocide in Ireland. Under no circumstances should the Queen mouth IRA propaganda during a visit to Ireland, particularly as in the most recent period, 1969 to the present day, it is the Republic of Ireland that has behaved badly. They have funded terrorism in a neighbouring country, while becoming rich on the back of our money, cycled to them through the EU, and are currently engaged in international diplomacy to ensure that our Brexit is a flop. They may even be seeking a resumption of communal violence in Ulster. The balance of fault since 1969 is skewed against the Irish government. Why should we apologise to them?

For these reasons, I cannot agree that the Queen “hasn’t put a foot wrong”. She has not angered the political/media elite, granted, but has moved towards distinctly anti-British public positions, and has been more than happy to enact our national dispossession via the European Communities Act and various immigration acts. One has to ask whether the Queen has always been an anti-imperialist. Surely, as the daughter of the King-Emperor she once has different views?

Prince Charles and Princess Diana

Overlooking the failed marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana, one that means that the current Royal family bears no relation to Queen Victoria’s attempt to portray domestic bliss, for example, in the famous portrait of her family by Franz Winterhalter. Diana, as a member of the aristocracy, was expected to know her place and conduct herself with decorum, but she played to the media gallery, not just in her accounts of her private life, but also in her pursuit of political causes. These included kissing AIDS patients in order to propagate the view that AIDS could not be transmitted easily and her campaign against landmines in African countries. Both were issues that placed her on the NGO left of the political debate. Neither was anything the wife of the heir to the throne should have engaged in. It is easy to see how the shenanigans of the Sussexes derive in part from Prince Harry’s attempts to be like his mother.

Prince Charles has in certain ways been a conservative public figure. He speaks impeccable English, supports the Prayer Book, and also opposes modern architecture, although, in keeping with his position, admiring our architectural heritage should be as far as he allows himself to go, without entering into public debates on what is a political/cultural issue. His desire to become Defender of Faith, and not Defender of the Faith, is a much more objectional stance. He signals that he will perjure himself by taking the Coronation Oath, and thereby openly supports the influx of Muslims into our country. He apparently believes that a religion based on the mores of 7th century Arabia is an equal path to God as the Christian religion—a view that has traditionally been regarded in this country as heretical. I would like to ask him if he supported Mohamed’s ruling that the rape of women and girls in warfare by his Muslim soldiers was OK (this ruling was handed down by the “prophet” during warfare with a tribe called the Banu Al-Mustaliq). Such multicultural views seem designed to facilitate the survival of Prince Charles’ Royal house even while ensuring that the British nation itself does not survive.

Prince Charles’ nakedly political intervention into the climate change debate is also foolish. Not only has there been only a fraction of the warming predicted by climate change models 20 years ago, despite the fact that much more carbon dioxide has been emitted, the ultimate role of human agency in this remains disputed. The planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles over millennia. Most of the alarmist claims made by the environmentalists have been disproven. The polar ice cap was said to be due to melt long ago, as was snow cover on the Himalayas. Claims that Australia’s bush fires were due to global warming sit ill with maps showing that the coastal areas where the fires took place were cooler than normal, and only the interior of the continent actually hotter. In the end, no-one would object to new energy sources including hydrogen as long as they could be utilised in a way that was as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, and as long as they provided a reliable source of heating that did not require us to adjust to indoor temperatures much lower than we are used to. The rush to Net Zero by 2050 will cost hundreds of billions. It would be much better to explore new techologies and adopt them only when they can be done cheaply.

Prince Harry and his US wife

It may be better to discuss Prince Harry first, as this will allow me to contrast Prince William with him. Harry and Meghan have openly adopted woke religion in a way that has severed their connection with the English people. Laughably false claims of racial prejudice that Meghan claims to have experienced have done serious damage to our country’s international reputation. The way they use the mental health issue to claim moral authority for their decision to flounce off to California is also contemptible. The wider cultural context is that such claims are deemed to be automatically true. Anyone denying that Meghan felt suicidal is told he is bullying the mentally ill. In some ways, Harry is a disappointment, as his record in the Armed Forces, and previous reports of his high jinks and comments he has made similar to those made by Prince Philip (including referring to the Pakistani origin of one his military friends) suggested that he was less caught up at one stage in the virtue signalling.

An unpleasant consequence of the Harry and Meghan saga is that the Queen is considering appointing a race co-ordinator at the Palace, a development likely to racialise the whole Palace operation. Such people are employed to find offence, and hunt it out, and so we are likely to be regaled with a constant stream of nonsensical stories about “racist ladies in waiting” and the like. This sort of thing just adds to the oppressive cultural environment, whereby words are deemed offensive, and people are not expected to brush off insults, and yet insults made to English people are regarded as harmless all the same.

Any hope in Prince William and Kate?

It would be nice to believe the Royal family will settle down with William and Kate. However, there are signs that this is not the case. While William has not flounced off to California, he does speak the woke lingo of his brother. William was reported as denouncing racism in football—a ludicrous concept, given that this is the most multiracial area of public life in the UK. More to the point, this is our country, and so, although black people are well represented in football, there is no reason why this has to be the case. If you go to China, most football players are Chinese for some reason that Prince William can’t quite put his finger on, but I can (because it’s China).

William may have also made a major mistake calling for more racial diversity in Britain’s BAFTA film awards, resulting in an award being made the next year to a black actor now accused of sexual harassment. I don’t think such claims should be given the credence they are, without stronger proof, but it does show that calling for a tickbox racialised culture could backfire on the monarchy. William should not be getting into these political causes.

Kate made a show of visiting a memorial, or flower display, for a woman raped and murdered by a (white) policeman in London, an extraordinarily rare occurrence, if you think about it. She sent little signals that she was on the side of the feminists. But she has never intervened in this way where the perpetrators were black, and has never said a word about the gang-rape of tens of thousands of underage English girls by Pakistani rape gangs.

The Future of the Windsors

The departure of Harry has led Charles and William to consider the family’s future. This discussion is being held in-house, without any public input or direct input by politicians. However, it is clear that the Windsors are responding to the Harry and Meghan affair by Meghanising or Oprahising the monarchy. One wonders why Harry has left if William has decided to pursue the same list of fashionable causes Harry and Meghan are pursuing in America. The family appears to be chasing good press headlines, given that the media elite are heavily invested in a list of causes including anti-racism, anti-sexism, gay rights, transgender identity and climate change.

However, these causes are much more patchily supported in the population at large. Where most people do, for example, oppose racial hatred and harassment, the definition given to such concepts can often veer to the extremes in a way that the public do not support. If you oppose the gang rape of English girls by Muslim gangs, that is said to be “racism”. If you believe that adults who wish to have sex-change operations should be allowed to, then the campaign groups who are driving social change argue that you should accept puberty blocking drugs given to children and the replacement of women by men in women’s sports. But worse than these things is the fact that the boundaries of public discussion are narrowing by the nanosecond, where views that the majority of the public hold are suddenly being declared unacceptable with an alarming frequency. The Royals are doing everything they can to drive this agenda, in a way that appears to lend moral authority to the woke causes they patronise.

The result of this WWW (the Woke-Washing of the Windsors) is to give further encouragement to the politicians and media in their determination to criminalise speech, and to use state power, including the police, to harass those who don’t share the allegedly correct views the Windsors hold. From being a family that represented the best of Britain and a symbol of the whole nation, the Royals are becoming just another representative of the new sneering Blairites who staff all other public institutions. I can’t see any place for the Windsors in a future free Britain, because they have now firmly allied themselves against our nation. If we end up a minority in this country by 2066, the Queen will have done her bit to make that happen. She is fluent in French, so she must understand the phrase après moi, le déluge!

5 thoughts on “What Future is There for a Politicised Monarchy?

  1. An interesting and largely accurate analysis. I disagree with your criticism of the Queen’s Irish speech, and also your criticisim of Kate for failing to do something that the was under no obligation to do – criticise the Rotherham business. I also feel you are being too harsh with Princess Diana. She was being used, but she learned to play them at their own game and win.
    But I don’t think you are being harsh enough with the Queen herself. She not only swore an oath to govern her peoples “according to their laws and customs” then went on to violate that oath numerous times; – she also re-took her Coronoation vows in 2003, when she was about to sign either the Nice Treaty or the “Constitution for Europe” (I forget which – there have so many such instances!). At the time, I was driving a bus, together with a few friends, round and round Parliament Square emblazoned with slogans beseeching Her Majesty not to violate her Coronation Oath by handing her subjects over to more Brussels’ rule. We made page 2 of the ‘Sun’, opposite the lovely Nicola from Croydon on page 3.
    When the Queen visited my home town of Horsham, we ambushed her repeatedly with placards protesting at the latest EU encroachment. Wherever she went in the town, we got there before her by taking short-cuts, so we got her four or five times in all. The thing that sticks in my mind was the immensely friendly wave we got from Prince Philip – a marvellous man in my view, much maligned by the press.
    Prince Charles is an idiot and a loser. I do not believe he will ever be King. All my life I have felt this instinctively. He has whole-heartedly embraced the new Religion of the Green New Deal and the Great Re-set, along with the likes of Bill Gates, George Soros and Klaus Schwab and all the rest of them.
    Prince Harry is a tragic case. He used to be such a lovely young man till he got tangled up with that witch and spell-bound by her malevolent ideas.
    There is hope in the form of William and Kate. She has conducted herself impeccably – no mean feat for a commoner, and in stark contrast with her sister-in-law.
    But the Queen? I have written to her dozens of times reminding her that she is the custodian of our constitution or she is nothing. I told her that she is beginning to attract the soubriquet ‘Elizabeth the Betrayer’ and that she deserves it. Now, you could argue that she is adopting a pro-EU position as a consequence of seeing her relatives across Europe at each other’s throats so often in the past. And she may believe that the EU will prevent a recurrence. That is a perfectly respectable position. But we are constantly reminded how ‘duty’ is so important to her. She seems to have forgotten her duty to her subjects, who have no desire to have their laws issued by a bunch of un-elected and anonymous bureucrats in a foreign country.
    Needless to say, however many letters I sent, I have an equal number of anodyne replies.
    I was a toddler on my father’s shoulders at the Coronation, wishing we could all go home because I was cold and wet. But look at the wonderful country she inherited in such tragic circumstances. And compare it with what she has allowed it to become. And yet everybody seems to love her. I don’t understand it.

    • You have written to the Queen numerous times and effectively called her a traitor? You’re a brave man, Hugo. But don’t worry: we’ll all visit you in the Tower and I will send in some books for you to read.

      On a serious note: I agree entirely. I think Queen Elizabeth II is easily the worst monarch this country has ever had.

      We are not living through one of our nation’s more distinguished eras.

  2. I agree with virtually all of this, but I am not sure about your criticism of Ireland.

    You state:

    [quote]”Under no circumstances should the Queen mouth IRA propaganda during a visit to Ireland, particularly as in the most recent period, 1969 to the present day, it is the Republic of Ireland that has behaved badly. They have funded terrorism in a neighbouring country, while becoming rich on the back of our money, cycled to them through the EU, and are currently engaged in international diplomacy to ensure that our Brexit is a flop. They may even be seeking a resumption of communal violence in Ulster. The balance of fault since 1969 is skewed against the Irish government. Why should we apologise to them?”[/quote]

    I am not sure if you are suggesting that Ireland as a state has funded terrorism or merely Ireland as a country, or maybe something else.

    There is the question of whether the Irish state actively colluded with violent republicans. It is already officially known that Irish ministers laid plans to send the Irish Army over the border during the worst of the early Troubles, though the idea was dismissed.

    One of the ‘hawks’ in the Irish government during this period was Charles Haughey. Do you think Charles Haughey of the 1970 Arms Crisis continued to support the IRA into his three terms as Taoiseach and operated the Irish state machinery accordingly? It is, so far as I can see, a neglected area of study/enquiry. I cannot believe he was innocent of the 1970 charges, though he was acquitted. He had a hot-and-cold relationship with Margaret Thatcher. She seems to have quite liked him personally, but at the same time, sent him very aggressive letters (by diplomatic standards) when issues to do with the IRA came up.

    In any event, I think I would have to concede that Ireland should have done more to interdict IRA and violent/criminal republican activities and the Irish courts should have extradited IRA and other republican suspects, not shielded them.

    But specifically, and assuming this is what you are alleging, what evidence do you have that Ireland as a country and/or state has funded or aided terrorism? I am not personally aware of any. Was there official support?

    Regarding Brexit, briefly, what specific acts do you say Ireland has done to sabotage or undermine the fuller success of Brexit? As far as I can tell, Ireland has just acted as a suzerainty to the EU and not done much at all one way or the other. It’s rather pathetic really, for a country that prides itself on resistance to British imperialism, etc., to watch Irish ministers act as obedient mouthpieces for a supranational authority.

    • There is also the question of the role of the Catholic Church in all the violence. I do not remember the Church loudly condemning the bombings and the violence, any more than they did the Nazis’ persecution and murder of the Jews.

      • This is true, Hugo. A former IRA terrorist, Shane O’Doherty, claims that there was organised collusion between the Provisionals and the Catholic Church.

        One of the most notorious names of the Troubles that I still remember was Patrick Ryan – an Irish Catholic priest, who was subject to an unsuccessful extradition attempt that was denied because of his vehement denials and refutations of the allegation that he was a covert IRA volunteer. Roughly a decade later admitted he was indeed an IRA bomb-maker and seemed proud of the fact.

        I may be wrong, but I can only think of one Catholic priest who was outspoken and actively condemnatory of republican violence, sadism and criminality: Father Edward Daly, the Bishop of Derry. He gave one of the most famous speeches of the Troubles in October 1990 when he condemned the IRA’s proxy bombing campaign: “their works proclaim clearly that they follow Satan”.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s