Do You REALLY Support The Monarchy?

Over the last two weeks I've been on a bit of a journey. As Dear Constant Readers will know, I've always been a royalist (the main reason for that is laid out here). However, as Her Majesty has been brought into political events by our Prime Minister-Gone-Rogue, I've come to the conclusion she doesn't have the capacity to defend us against political events and we need our head of state to be the backstop (sorry) to our system to ensure that, in the worst case scenario, we have someone able to say "No more!".

Anyway... today's ruling by the Court of Session that Boris Johnson may have misled Her Majesty as to the reasons why he wanted to prorogue Parliament (the case heads to the Supreme Court next week) leaves in stark relief the fact that this country's supposed loyalty to the monarchy is barely at lip service level.

Look at any social media and you'll find Brexiteers. They are up in arms about the decision. Some of the crazier types are calling for "us" to "ditch Scotland". Just think about it for a second. Her Majesty is currently at her Balmoral residence in Scotland. She has a fairly well-known love for Scotland. She swore an oath to serve as monarch for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you truly loved the Queen, would you ever say such words? I think not.

And, when push comes to shove, any suggestion that Her Majesty has been lied to should send waves of revulsion and anger through any true royalist. They'd want to get to the bottom of it and would certainly treat anyone accused of such a thing with a reasonable amount of suspicion. Look, however, at social media and you'll find plenty of people who'd describe themselves as patriots lining up to declare their wholehearted support to Boris Johnson in this matter.

It seems very, very clear that no matter what the polls might say about public support for Her Majesty, it isn't very deep support and pretty much any other political desire (it may be Brexit here but it could be anything) will trump loyalty to her.

The proof will be in the political polls. If support for the Conservatives doesn't drop significantly over the coming week, then there will be your proof that nobody really, not deep in their hearts, cares for the monarchy any more.

Don't, of course, get me started on Nigel Farage. I've still not forgiven him for rating Putin more highly than Her Majesty as a world leader. He probably didn't even think about her when deciding on that which, again, underlines that these "patriots" aren't all that patriotic!

Slave Labour For Her Majesty's Jubilee? Heads Must Roll

I don't think I need to remind you that I'm a royalist, and I absolutely adore the Jubilee. Driving through the villages of west Kent yesterday I was thrilled to see all the bunting and village parties. Flags were flying and children were having fun, nothing better for a Bank Holiday weekend national celebration.

But perhaps what you may not know is just how despicable I find "Workfare". As someone with libertarian sympathies I find the concept of the Government forcing people to work quite appalling. It is nothing but slave labour, in my opinion.  

So I was somewhat aghast this morning to see this story in the Guardian.

Firstly, and most importantly, is the way in which we are treating unemployed people as slave labour. It's bad enough making them go to work for no pay, but forcing them to camp out? I had never even considered that as an option. Who thought that making people do work they probably don't want to do AND camp out in the cold was a reasonable thing to do in 21st century Britain?

Secondly, and with quite worrying in its indications of the stupidity of those who arranged these workfare workers, who signed off on this? Her Majesty and Her Household have been VERY careful to avoid controversy. They have avoided using public money to pay for the Jubilee as much as possible. I am quite convinced nobody in a position of responsibility in the Royal Household would have signed off on this, due to the bad PR this would lead to. Because this is AWFUL PR. Someone has brought Her Majesty into disrepute here by tying her Diamond Jubilee celebrations with the extremely controversial Workfare scheme. This shows a level of idiocy I never could have imagined.

Someone is responsible for this. Someone must be held accountable because abusing the unemployed in this way and at the same time bringing our monarch into murky political waters is perhaps the most intolerable thing I've seen in the UK in a long time.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Her Majesty: An Avatar For The Better Angels of Our Nature

This isn't going to convince a republican. In fact I wouldn't try to convince a republican as, and I've said this before, I'm mostly convinced by the more rational republican arguments. My love of the monarchy is wholly irrational.

But I wanted to say a little something about what I think is the best quality of Her Majesty; that is that she embodies our better qualities.

In the world of Second Life, users create avatars for themselves based, usually, not on what they actually look or act like but as they would wish to be. They use these avatars as their "front" to meet others, to interact and explore.

Her Majesty is the avatar of the United Kingdom. She is compelled by protocol and tradition to represent the better qualities of our nation. She, and her forebears, are stoic when faced with disaster. Polite and courteous no matter the situation. Strong yet not aggressive. Humble (in manner if not in more material matters) yet not grovelling. We send Her Majesty as our avatar to other countries to put our best foot forward and use her to greet the good and the great who visit us.

No greater example of this can there be than in the events surrounding the death of the Princess of Wales. When our country mourned (I won't get into my feelings on those events!), we forced her to adapt to our requirements, to grieve a little more publicly than she would have liked to personally. She is not a free agent, but is the beating heart of our country.

Of course this is not a surprise, at her coronation she swore to serve our country. Her office is not of ruler but as a representative of something larger than her and than us all, of something a politician can't embody for more than a short time. She is our history and our nations soul given a body and allowed to walk among us.

That, I believe, is why Her Majesty is so special, for she has taken these duties upon herself with never a public complaint or an urge to stamp her own personal beliefs upon the institution. And it's also why it's always sad to see people try and bring her into political matters.

For 60 years she has served us, and served us well. I wish her many more years on the throne!!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Shepway And The Diamond Jubilee

There's plenty to look forward to this weekend in Shepway, from the local street parties to the Folkestone Airshow and other organised events. A large floral tribute to Her Majesty The Queen is in place on the Leas, shops are putting up their bunting and posters are up for both the lighting of the Jubilee lantern and the fairground on the old Rotunda site. But there's one little bizarre thing that I don't think Shepway thought through correctly.

The other day I got home to find a large Union flag flying outside my house. I smiled and thought it was for the Jubilee. The next morning I took my new dog Ayden for a walk up my street, and stopped to look at some of the other flags which obviously weren't Union flags. Hmm... other Realms? Commonwealth nations? Erm... no this one is Morocco! I racked my brain for connections to the Jubilee and then realised... they were up because of the Olympics!

Now forgiving the slight slap in the face that gives to Her Majesty (Diamond Jubilees are a tad rarer that Olympic games in this country), it's caused quite a bit of confusion. Those I've spoken to about have mostly genuinely thought the flags were for the Jubilee and either thought the other flags were Union flags or thought Shepway Council was just a completely useless organisation that would put up any old flags as they didn't have enough Union flags!!

It seems bizarre, absolutely crazy in fact, to put up flags for the Olympics a few days before Her Majesty's Jubilee. Why do it? Why not allow a weekend of national celebration to pass before moving on to the next excitement? Last year during the Royal wedding celebrations I drove through Reigate High Street, which was covered in Union flags. It was absolutely fantastic. We even had flags up here in Folkestone. But obviously this year Shepway District Council doesn't think highly enough of Her Majesty to even postpone the Olympic flag raising let alone put up some British flags to celebrate.

I really don't get it.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

My Own Personal Brand Of Patriotism

St. George's Day. As any one of my personal acquaintance would know, this is not a day I respect. On many subjects I am a rational person with a healthy scepticism. I like evidence-based science. I find religion fascinating but ultimately false. I enjoy reasoned arguments from others and like to try and keep my beliefs consistent. But on the subject of patriotism, reason leaves me and is instead replaced with the sort of passion others seem to reserve for their deities.

And my form of patriotism is not one rooted in popular culture. It's my own brand mixing royalism, unionism and personal loyalty to strangers. I no longer attempt to argue against English nationalism as I once did. Nor do I argue against republicanism, given I find many arguments in favour of it both logical and compelling. But I also do not expect anyone to ever change my own beliefs on the matter.

I find English nationalism dull and and without romance. It seems unfocussed and, occasionally, loutish. I don't mean to say people who consider themselves "English" are louts, but that often the expression of nationalism that is most often encountered (i.e. through sport) is loutish.

And I find republicanism to often be less expressed in the logic that is so compelling and more about a personal hatred of Her Majesty and her family. The snide comments on Twitter I often see RT'd by @RepublicStaff are indicative of this nastiness and it leaves me cold. Furthermore, republicanism shares English nationalism's unromantic nature.

Perhaps it's my love of fantasy, my interest in British (plus earlier English and Scottish) history or a very human need for a little bit of irrationality in one's life, but I love the monarchy. I love the United Kingdom. I find a great deal of comfort in knowing the Queen is on her throne and she reigns over us. I like the pomp, I like the chivalry and I like the notion of personal loyalty to someone.

In my job I encounter so many unreasonable, impolite and, often, duplicitous people that I find I crave something as simple as being unfailingly loyal to another person without expecting anything in return. It's seems so pure and honourable to keep one's word to another; like something from that better part of our nature that we so often don't get to show.

I am personally loyal to Her Majesty and her heirs, to her United Kingdom and it's territories. I do not accept that patriotism means waving a big flag, celebrating some long dead saint or dying in some politically motivated war. It's not about "shared culture", where you are born or some historic borders. It's about loyalty, honour, decency and fellowship. To me it's about progress, innovation and goodwill.

Whatever happens to this country, whether it remains at it is or becomes an English Republic, I will remain a loyal British subject. Unwavering in my personal loyalty but respectful of other's beliefs.

St. George means nothing to me, but if he so moves you to acts of passion then far be it from me to try and dissuade you. But I'm more moved by things such as this excellent Youtube video I posted about yesterday:



If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

A Royal Wedding And An Inconvenient Truth

So, full disclosure as always, I'm a royalist. I know, it's mad. I've tried being a republican! I've gone through my political beliefs and found there is no sensible reason for me to be a royalist. I've told myself this in the sternest of words. But I just can't help myself. I have an irrational loyalty to Her Majesty. This reluctant royalism does mean I'm very sympathetic to republicans. I agree with you on the political, constitutional and democratic arguments. You win.


However after the (wonderful) news of Prince William's engagement to Kate Middleton yesterday I saw so much stupid on Twitter that I feel compelled to correct some extremely loose understandings of this country's constitutional arrangements with regards to the Royal family's finances.


Don't think of this as some royalist argument in favour of keeping the Royal family, it's not. This is simply a post to put some facts straight. After you've read this, you can have no excuse for continuing to spread these lies.


Why are we paying for an over the top Royal wedding during this time of austerity?


Simple answer: we're not. As this article states (although ignore the bit at the end it's very misleading and I'll show why later), it's likely this money will come from the Civil List, Her Majesty's "reserve fund" (savings from previous Civil List payments) and/or Her Majesty's personal wealth. After the 1990s media disasters, the Palace has learnt it's lessons. It is unlikely to ask the Commons to approve any further spending during an austerity drive, as it has from time to time in the past.


What if it does and doesn't the Civil List get paid from our tax money? Why are we propping up these rich, unelected toffs?? 


This is a false presumption. I know, it's commonly said the Royal family "cost" every person in the country 50p (or more precisely now, 69p). This is not true. Certainly the "costs" that the Government pays are about £40 million. These come from grants for maintenance and from the Civil List. However, these costs don't come from our taxes! When George III ascended to the throne, it was decided that, in return for surrendering the Crown Estates to the Government, the Government would pay his personal living expenses through the Civil List. The profits the Government makes far exceed the amounts given in grants, through the Civil List and through security costs. So the Royal family is actually a profitable venture for us and they can, on the accession of a new monarch, change those arrangements. So it might be best we keep them on side during this age of cuts! 


But hasn't the Civil List been stopped?


Yes. To make the historic arrangement more explicit, the Government will, from 2013,no longer be paying the Civil List or grants but instead pay a yearly one-off payment called the Sovereign Support Grant specifically from the profits of the Crown Estate. In the meantime, the Royal finances have been reduced greatly. 


So. Please stop carping on about the costs of the monarchy. If you want to get rid of them, not only will we have to pay the costs of a President but we'd also lose our profits from the Crown Estate. We'd be looking at a couple of hundred million pounds lost to the Treasury. So remember that and stick to making sensible democratic arguments against the monarchy. Financial arguments make you look ridiculous.


No more "Stop the wedding, build a hospital instead" type tweets please. Deal?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Reasons To Want A Republic Cannot Be Found Here

Liberal Conspiracy has just put up an incredibly lazy article which is little more than an anti-monarchy piece. What's wrong with that? I hear you liberal sorts cry. Nothing except it doesn't really advance a positive case for a republic does it? If we start choosing our systems based on which one isn't the one we've got, we're in trouble.

Of course, full disclosure is required. I'm an unabashed royalist. But in keeping with the style of the original piece, I'm not going to defend that position (mainly because I find it hard to, I think the Royal Family is this atheists version of "God". It's a faith thing ;) ) and instead shoot down the lazy arguments held within it. Before I do, I just want to say this isn't an attack on republicans, so calm down!

It starts off with this quote:

On my trip to England I noticed something obscene
People there still actually give a shit about the Queen

Oh God, an incorrect premise. A trip to England? Did he travel back in time? Last I check that historic country ceased to exist in 1707 (alright, alright, I'm moving on...)

It goes on

"The arguments for a monarchy in Britain today are as follows:"

Hmm.. interesting. I'm sure they wouldn't then go on to mention just the rubbish one's only foolish "patriotic" numpties sprout would they? They wouldn't descend to the intellectual level of the Sun when they asked the question of "Should gay people be allowed to be Ministers?" Sadly... they do...

She’s our queen, and having a royal family has always been a part of Britain.

Untrue. We have been ruled by French, German and (much further back) Roman monarchs/emperors. The current set are more German than anything. There is nothing less fundamentally British than the Royal Family.

There was me thinking that being "fundamentally British" would mean a descent from immigrants, from the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans ("French" as the author so callously refers to them as, nothing "fundamentally French" about them I'd argue) etc. etc. etc. And the fact is, at least since the times of the Kings of Kent, the Royal Family tree keeps coming back to these islands. I find this "xenophobic" argument rather disturbing. Are they saying that if we were a republic they'd not want to give us a free vote but limit it to those of "pure" British stock??? As someone who is of Anglo-Saxon and Viking descent am I to be cast out with all these other foreign types??

The Royal Family make money from tourism, and if they were gone we would lose the massive amounts of income it provides.

Tourists love the crown jewels, the palaces, and the exhibitions of royal paraphernalia. In a republic we could still maintain these items as historical anachronisms that can be viewed through a glass cage. Of course, we all know how terribly badly off our republican neighbours do without a monarch but with all the glitzy effects that they left behind. France’s income from tourism: 66 billion €, centred on chateaux, art collections previously owned by royalty, and palaces formerly inhabited by their unfortunate aristocracy.

Whilst I think this in itself is a lame argument for keeping the monarchy, I also find the suggestion that the fact they still exist with all their pomp and ceremony doesn't add something to the tourists experience a little bit difficult to believe.

"The Queen doesn’t have any power anyway

Symbolism is important. Look at the Catholic church. The use of icons has allowed the Catholics to put a little piece of religion into homes, schools, and workplaces in religious countries. If symbolism doesn’t matter, then presumably the whole of Britain would be content if we put a copy of the Qu’ran in every classroom in the UK? There would be uproar, of course, because objects have a symbolic afterlife. The queen’s head on a coin says “you are my subject, whether I have any real power or not”. In modern Britain today, we do not need to be the subjects of anybody. The symbolism implies that British people agree with paying for and supporting a family who make Britain look laughable in an international context."

The idea that this is an argument in favour of the monarchy is a little far fetched. This is a lazy argument against change, at best. The Queen doesn't make us look laughable. She speaks other languages, she always shows us in a good light when abroad. You need only look at the FEAR on the face of ol' Dubya when she popped by to see him to know she is held in high esteem by many. Of course not everyone agrees, they don't here and they don't in other countries. How a President would change this, I don't know. They'll be liked by some, hated by others. Symbolism is also overrated (and I'd hope there is a Qu'ran in every decent school's library if not every classroom).

How would we go about getting rid of them? It would be impossible.

One of the perks or flaws of our democracy, depending on how you look at it, is that a simple Act of Parliament can change anything. In 1911, many powers of the House of Lords were removed by David Lloyd George. The Lords had to vote for the abolition of their own strength, or face even more stringent penalties. The monarchy will have to sign their own (metaphorical) death warrant, and just like all unemployed people the family can of course get Jobseekers allowance (at the time of writing), return to their jobs in the military, and get on the property ladder.

I have never, ever in all my years of arguing in favour of a monarchy come across this argument. Are arguments against the monarchy so weak that you need to find pretend arguments in their favour to argue against???

Finally the writer mentions the actions of the "future monarch" reflects badly on the institution. Of course, that argument can be shot down easily with "Dubya". Does he reflect badly on America's republic because of his actions? Or was he just a bad President?

I'm a royalist but I could, quite easily, come up with hundreds of positive reasons why we should have a republic. I could even argue in favour the monarchy. Liberal Conspiracy seems unable to argue sensibly for either! Their article is nothing but distortion, propaganda and downright disturbing nationalism.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Happy Birthday Your Royal Highness

Yesterday His Royal Highness The Prince Of Wales, Prince Charles to you and me, turned 60. I have to say his latest official portrait makes him look particularly regal reminding us that one day, not too soon I hope for the sake of Her Majesty The Queen, he will be our King!