10 Feb 2010
One of Republic’s core messages is that in a democracy the people must take responsibility for their own affairs, not simply point the finger of blame at others or seek maternal protection from the ‘powers-that-be’. Sadly this desire to shift responsibility seems hard-wired into some monarchists, including, it seems, some leading academics and economists.
The Telegraph today reported that a letter has been sent to the Queen by a number of economists and academics, suggesting that: “by receiving regular updates from ministers on the state of the country’s finances… the Queen, could act as a vital buffer against unforeseen financial disaster.”
When I first read it I had to double check that today wasn’t April 1st, so bizarre and unbelievable this suggestion is. But no, it is still February.
If the story is accurate then we are seeing an extraordinary example of the monarchist desire to crave paternal protection rather than assume responsibility for their own affairs. It’s as if they are teenagers still desperate to stay at home rather than start their lives as independent adults, too afraid of the big responsibilities and decisions that come with adulthood.
Perhaps it is also a symptom of the woeful state of our political system and political culture, that serious and intelligent people see no recourse in the democratic structures and so instead reach for the safety-blanket of royal assistance.
But, as I said in our press release, the idea that the Queen is in a position to avert economic disaster is laughable. Even if she were qualified to take on such a role it would be utterly wrong of her to do so when she is entirely unaccountable for her actions and decisions.
More than at any time, at times of crisis we must take full responsibility for our actions and decisions. We do that by looking to our democratic bodies and institutions and, if necessary, changing those we have elected. This is our country, our economy, our crisis – it is our responsibility. Only those we have chosen to govern and take decisions can be allowed to do so, so that we can take that responsibility seriously and hold to account those we have charged with the duties of state.
They say one of the problems with monarchy is that it makes otherwise intelligent people say some very silly things. A finer example would be hard to find.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 at 10:06 am and is filed under Case for a republic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
February 10th, 2010 at 10:49 am
The idea that Mrs Windsor could do something to help the UK economy does have a little bit of merit. By stepping down in favour of a democratically elected president, she could save the taxpayer millions of unwarranted expense.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:57 am
The credit crunch was “so spectacularly missed” because of unfettered greed amongst the already rich trying to get even more money out of people who could hardly afford to live.
Given that Mrs W is one of the richest people in World*, that hardly sounds like the perfect qualification to be the nation’s financial watchdog in such circumstances, does it?
(* worth anything between £1.7bn and £17bn, depending upon who you read and whether you include the “company property”)
February 10th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
It was months ago now that i highlighted some of the very misleading errors on the royal finances page. It is rather strange that months on those figures have not been corrected. Who is taking responsibility for these errors?
Why does republic not correct the mistakes and stop misleading people instead of seeking to blame it on the “powers-that-be” for not providing detailed figures on these matters.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Give it a rest Simon. You’re like a broken record.
I listened to that interview with Peter Hennessey and I couldn’t believe my ears. That a supposed academic could spout such drivel amazes me. That the BBC once again failed in its duty to provide balanced reporting on monarchical matters was of absolutely no surprise, it’s what I’ve come to expect. I’ve written to the Today program to protest at this outrage and I urge everyone else to do the same.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
And you dont think moaning about the BBC being biased against republicans is like a broken record?
From what i have seen they are pretty fair to you guys often getting quotes from Republic about matters like royal expenses.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Simon, can you please at least try and stay on topic. This isn’t a forum to discuss Simon’s complaints about Republic, it’s a forum to discuss ideas presented in the form of articles and posts on the various subjects around our campaign.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I’m getting sick of writing to the BBC about its royal coverage. It’s PATHETIC. I genuinely think that the Beeb is the best in the world but when it comes to reporting on the Windsors it just seems to see how many backsides it can get its tongue in the vicinity of (apologies for being so crude). I could not believe what I was hearing when I was listening to the Today programme this morning.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Perhaps if we shower them with formal complaints in future someone will eventually take notice.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
From the Telegraph article:
…accuses ministers of failing to take a long-term view of the economy and shying away from making predictions which may turn out to be wrong.
Perfect demonstration of what I was talking about in the previous thread: “the lousy politicians have failed us, so let’s get the monarch to look after us, because clearly we’re too stupid to govern ourselves.”
The letter states: “If you, your majesty, were to ask for a monthly economic and financial horizon scanning summary, from say, the cabinet office, it could hardly be refused…and if this were to happen, the spirit of your LSE question would suffuse still more of those of your crown servants tasked to defend, preserve and enhance the economic wellbeing of your country.”
Need more be said?
February 10th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
I don’t blame the economists and academics at all. What they are doing is being realistic. The Monarch is by law and otherwise, the unitary power in the country. They are showing what I have been saying on this board: the Monarch is not powerless; it just appears so. The monarchy is well camouflaged to look ceremonial. The monarch is in charge of everything. The fact that economists and academics are making a plea to the monarch for such micromanagement should tell you something. Those academics and economists are not stupid. They understand that the monarch is in charge with her council. The office of the prime minister is there to placate Scotland and other enclaves of the UK to stay in the union. The government takes its marching orders from Buckingham palace.
February 11th, 2010 at 8:09 am
eclub – while it is true that the monarch is not powerless it is certainly not true that ‘the government takes its marching orders from Buckingham palace’ or that ‘the office of the prime minister is there to placate Scotland…’
February 11th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk is the address to which a formal complaint can be sent.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Graham,
I stand corrected on the two points.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
I do not think the BBC is the best in the World. How can it be when it has employed certain extremely silly people to talk absolute rubbish at times, and be insulting to boot. The biggest crime is that the BBC have grossly overpaid these,er ,um, “entertainers “!
February 11th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
On paper, the government is “Her Majesty’s Government”.
On Paper, the opposition party, is “Her majesty’s Opposition”.
On Paper, the Army, the Marines, the Navy, the police, is Her Majesty’s.
Indeed, all accreditation, be it economic or Academic are conferred by Her Majesty.
Indeed, all bills receive her Majesty’s assent.
Indeed, all individuals, groups, government agencies are subservient to Her Majesty.
Her Majesty is imposingly featured, prominently, on currency, on stamps, and on most state instruments and documents.
Indeed, there is very little demarcation between state wealth and her Majesty’s.
Indeed, the Prime Minister is mandated to meet, discuss, intimate all state secret with her Majesty.
Indeed, the privy council controlled by even members of her Majesty’s Family, make laws that are most times untouched, even untouchable by either parliament or the courts. The privy council is the apparatus of her Majesty’s. An apparatus that can make declarations, irreversible declarations, laws, mandates…
There is no Accountability or Responsibility on the Monarchy. None.
And I’m suppose to understand? I am supposed to assume it’s only traditional, historical and ceremonial? Or it’s just a little power here and there. I’m not convinced yet. Sure, it says it on paper that she is in charge of everything, but I also see it indeed! The allegiance pledged by the military, the parliament, the corporations, the citizens and subjects, looks like some sort of tradition and joke, but I see it played out everyday INDEED. I don’t blame the economists and the academics, they can get what they prayed for if her Majesty wants, all she has to do is declare it. It will be carried out indeed.
February 11th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Graham,
I will paste the sundry definition of Power ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/power ) below, let’s see which doesn’t apply to the monarch:
pow⋅er
–noun
1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.
2. political or national strength: the balance of power in Europe.
3. great or marked ability to do or act; strength; might; force.
4. the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy: power over men’s minds.
5. political ascendancy or control in the government of a country, state, etc.: They attained power by overthrowing the legal government.
6. legal ability, capacity, or authority: the power of attorney.
7. delegated authority; authority granted to a person or persons in a particular office or capacity: the powers of the president.
8. a document or written statement conferring legal authority.
9. a person or thing that possesses or exercises authority or influence.
10. a state or nation having international authority or influence: The great powers held an international conference.
11. a military or naval force: The Spanish Armada was a mighty power.
12. Often, powers. a deity; divinity: the heavenly powers.
And here is:
re⋅spon⋅si⋅bil⋅i⋅ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or fact of being responsible.
2. an instance of being responsible: The responsibility for this mess is yours!
3. a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible: the responsibilities of authority.
4. a person or thing for which one is responsible: A child is a responsibility to its parents.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:39 am
Alright, let me further speak my mind, speak the truth, make some clarification, and go there, point out something that always make me seem to be petty to some, and to others, condescending, but to all, right:
1. The Prime Minister is nothing but what we call in the United States “the Speaker of the House”. That’s all the Prime Minister is. Primus inter pares (first amongst equals). The Prime Minister is not the equivalent of the President of the United States at all. And that is why, when the relationship of George Bush and Tony Blair was revealed, one can noticeably see that Tony Blair was Bush’s poodle. And that is the way it should be. If the Brits wants a leader that should rub shoulders with an American President, they should elect one. There is no need to get mad at me, I’m only stating the truth. You will not expect to present an individual who was elected to be an ordinary member of Parliament in his district with probably fewer than 20,000 people to be on equal footing with someone who was elected by an entire country to be their leader. In other for Republic to be successful, Republic has to boldly handle these truths, remove the patriotism and pride associated with telling it like it is.
2. The major difference between Graham and myself in regards to the monarchy is thus: Graham and i believes that the Monarch is the unitary power in the country on Paper, that is to say, in the constitution and so forth, and I believe in addition to that, that the Monarch is also the unitary Power in deed. I am arguing that those pronouncements in regards to the Monarchs power that appears not to be utilised, are actually being utilised one by one by the Monarch. For example, if it is said that the Monarch is above the law passed by Parliament, sooner or later, the Monarch comes to claim that right. Take the Freedom of Information thing for example. Right now, the Monarch wants to enjoy that privilege. Before now, it looked like that prerogative could never be invoked in modern times, think again. And so it goes for anything you can think of. If the Monarch has the right, the Monarch invokes it when the Monarch needs it. And let me remind you, the Monarch has absolute powers in that constitution, convention, tradition, or what ever you call it. I want some debate on my claims. i have proof that i’m dying to show.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:40 am
And oh, I should have linked my concluding sentence in post#10 (where I claimed that the government gets their marching orders from Buckingham Palace- an extra ordinary claim), to my post#17 by saying that Gordon Brown will soon propose that the Monarch and her extended family should all be exempt from the FOI, that is one marching order for your perusal.
February 12th, 2010 at 10:43 am
“It’s as if they are teenagers still desperate to stay at home rather than start their lives as independent adults, too afraid of the big responsibilities and decisions that come with adulthood.”
Teenagers desperate to stay at home? more like middle aged bed-wetting virgins! I cannot believe what I’ve just read. OMG!
It’s not as if the Royal family have the best reputation for financial prudence now is it?
One of the reasons they are crying for an increase in the Civil list payments is to pay some members NOT to work because they are financially illiterate!
Maybe if the country does go officially bankrupt they could persuade the lenders to write off the debts. They’re usually quite good at that!
February 12th, 2010 at 11:34 am
This is the trouble when you have foreigners trying to influence debate on our constitutional setup, from the outside they clearly do not understand our system and its very confusing for them. Whilst i disagree with Graham on many things, clearly he has more of an understanding of what is going on this country than someone on the other side of the Atlantic.
Ash,
The reason why the Queen wants a rise in the civil list is because it hasnt been increased for many years. In a period when government departments have seen their budgets more than double, its not unreasonable to expect a small increase in the civil list. Even republics saw their presidential budgets increased as i highlighted in one of my previous posts with actual figures.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:52 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8512279.stm
Some members of the Royal Family frequently drive themselves.
Wow.
Next thing we’ll find out that they also make their own cups of tea.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
“This is the trouble when you have foreigners trying to influence debate on our constitutional setup, from the outside they clearly do not understand our system and its very confusing for them. Whilst i disagree with Graham on many things, clearly he has more of an understanding of what is going on this country than someone on the other side of the Atlantic.”
It has to be said at least he makes an effort to understand the system.
He doesn’t do too badly to say He’s an Non-Brit, and besides which even the so called experts struggle fully to understand our system of governance.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Simon,
When you say that I’m on the other side of the Atlantic, that is only a phrase in my ears, to make it a complete sentence, you’ll need to say that I’m wrong and give the reasons why I’m wrong. There are few or nothing new under the sun.
Here in the United States, we also honor traditions, but we separate that honor from real life. For example, when former President Jimmy Carter retired, his successor President Ronald Reagan gave him state honor of mailing his letters without postage stamps for life. Now, that is a good honor. We all know that former President Jimmy Carter will still pay for and affix stamps on his mail, even though he doesn’t have to. He will not abuse the privilege. Now Imagine him or his family members go into business and start sending mail in competition with the US Postal Service, let’s say he charges ten cents less, and use the honor given to him by United States to make money, would that be nice? No!
If the monarchy is given a traditional honor, it should remain only in the traditional realm! Not be used on a day to day basis.
Another example here in the US, many Universities confer honorary degrees to individuals for remarkable things they did in whatever endeavors (I spell American most times). In some cases, an honorary Medical Degree or Law Degree is given to a novice in Medicine or Law, perhaps for making the University proud somewhere. It is usually known between the giver and the receiver of the degree that you should not go out there and start Operating on a Pregnant woman for instance, with that degree. Or step into a court room to defend a murder case with your honorary law degree. Or start calling yourself Dr So and So. But in the case of the British monarchy, they will use those degrees!
So, no Simon no, it doesn’t matter what side of the Atlantic you are on, the question is resolved with true or false. That is the currency we should trade in, Simon. If I’m wrong, show me. I want to be wrong. And I will learn and correct the error, if you can prove me wrong.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Eclub1 – Do not fall into Simon’s trap. He draws people in and gets them going round in never ending circles addressing his never ending mostly nonsensical none-arguments. He is, I have long ago deduced, a troll.
To get back on subject – what worries me about this suggestion from a group of academics is just that, they are supposed to be academics, and yet it is not obvious to them how ridiculous their suggestion is, given the fact that the queen is less than qualified to do as they suggest, and even if she was adequately qualified she has no democratic mandate anyway. No, what they do apparently see is what Simon sees, a maternal infallible goddess whose apron they want to crawl under. It’s quite worrying. What’s also quite worrying is the BBC chose to report on this suggestion on the Today programme without inviting someone to give a counter view and without investigating the constitutional implications of such a suggestion being taken up.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
“This is the trouble when you have foreigners trying to influence debate on our constitutional setup, from the outside they clearly do not understand our system and its very confusing for them. “
It’s not the foreigners who do not understand our system, it’s the indigenous population of Great Britain who have appear to have problems understanding our system!
I’m guessing it’s back to the abdication of responsibility – maybe people don’t want to know which is a welcome relief to the government of the day.
February 12th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
The monarchy in our country has far too much anyway. Not only should they not get Civil List increases, but they should be taxed more . They have so much money that they can afford to foot the bill themselves. they should also cut back a great deal.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Here’s another piece from the Telegraph this week which is much less nauseating than the one about the academics pleading for monarchical intervention in the economy, but all the more thought-provoking when considered in the context of that plea:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/benedict-brogan/7208128/To-win-Cameron-must-convince-the-public-to-trust-politicians-again.html
Obviously I look at these arguments from the perspective of a Conservative who places much trust in Cameron’s credentials as leader and reformer – but we must try and put political differences aside here. Because the fundamental message of this article is that, although the masses do not trust Labour any more, they are so thoroughly disenfranchised that they don’t believe any political party is going to do a better job, and may therefore, come May 6, opt to stick with what they’ve got on a “Better the devil you know” basis.
Now of course, even if Brown does somehow pull off the unthinkable and hold onto the keys to Downing Street, there are still things we can do as republicans to try and encourage people to join us in our pursuit of a truly democratic settlement. But with the looming threat of an activist monarch in the background, and supposedly distinguished pillars of the academic community pleading for the current one to get ahead with the activism, do we not have before us the clearest warning that British democracy is in mortal danger – suggesting that, in the immediate short-term, the only way it can be saved may be for the people to take a blind leap of faith and place their trust in a new government, even one whose traditions they may dislike and whose current policies they may not trust? Because a democracy is, at the end of the day, all about the people; so if the people lack the faith to embrace the unknown because they believe nothing can save them, then what hope is there for democracy?
Charles must have been licking if his lips if or when he read Benedict Brogan’s column yesterday. The less the people trust the politicians, the easier it will be for future monarchs to meddle in politics.
February 13th, 2010 at 12:10 am
@ barry,
I’m not entirely sure what the current position is with regards to funding activities of the monarchy (FoI and all that prevents us from knowing fully) but certainly the like of the first Queen Elizabeth practically ran her subjects dry.
The Queen’s “spymaster”, Walsingham, for instance, funded his exploits both at home and abroad out of his own pocket on behalf of Her Majesty. Despite being almost bankrupt as a result, his unrequited loyalty to the monarch was unquestionable especially considering how he was treated in return.
Likewise, the great privateers of the era were essentially pirates funded by merchants and the monarch who expected a considerable return on their investments.
These days, abdication of responsibility tends to work the other way around but upon such practices great empires were founded!
February 13th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Dear Martin,
Thank you for that input. It was very interesting . Of course things must have been different in the times of Queen Elizabeth 1st, Henry 8th etc. They were dictators in real terms, and as in the case of Henry 8th,( if not quite a few others), they were also despots and serial killers .
February 14th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
“I’m getting sick of writing to the BBC about its royal coverage. It’s PATHETIC. I genuinely think that the Beeb is the best in the world but when it comes to reporting on the Windsors it just seems to see how many backsides it can get its tongue in the vicinity of (apologies for being so crude). I could not believe what I was hearing when I was listening to the Today programme this morning”
Looking through this thread, it’s hard to find something to say that has not been already. Picking up on the above text from Liam howver, I am reminded of the BBC’s tenis coverage a couple of weeks ago on Radio 5 Live when there was a match between ???? ( I cannot remember who it was between, do not follow tennis). However, because Prince Will was in the audiance, the commentry always made references to the losing player being “right Royally thrashed” and so on! Sycophantic, definately. More than this, it was quite childish. It was treating the listener as an infant.
It’s a bit like Apple products.
Take the new iPad and the surrounding hype. As someone who has in interest in technology, Apple products should have a bigger place in my heart, perhaps. , The fact is of course is that Apple do build up MASSIVE brand loyalty partly by producing very nice looking must have products (iPod, iMac). If you use an Mp3 player made by Creative, Sony, Samsung or Philips, you are ‘uncool’. Well, I am VERY uncool then, as I do not own a single Apple product.
Of course, with every launch of a new Apple product comes the tanker load of hype. Much of this is generated via secrecy, false info and at any Apple launch event, an audience of die-hard Apple evangelists and hand picked pro-Apple IT journalists.
Which moves me onto the Apple iPad. I’m sure most of you will be aware of the iPad. It is basically a computer in the form of a big electronic tablet / pad. Sort of a chubby iPhone.
Upon it’s launch, the BBC’s Newsnight gave the iPad an uncritical news item, even allowing notable Apple fan, Steven Fry to drool over it. This according to computer mag, Micro Mart, amounted to a free ad for Apple, using licence payers cash!
The above is similar to how the BBC and other media outlets treat the Royals. Yes, sometimes a Republic spokesman is allowed five minutes to give an opposing view. However, for the most part, that is not the case esp when pro-royal quips make it into things such as sports coverage.
If this were the Conservative party for example, a broadcaster or presenter were showing even covert bias towards, I’m damn sure that Labour, the Lib Dems and others will call for an enquiry (if the BBC) and for this particular broadcaster to be dismissed. Why do people accept this for the Royals but would find this much less acceptable for a political party for instance?
As for Apple, I can make a choice whether to buy into the hype and purchase one or more of their products. What I cannot do is choose this country’s head of state!
February 14th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
This is the reply I got from the BBC as a result of my complaint.
Thank you for your email and taking the trouble to write to us. This
wasn’t an item about the relative merits of the monarchy versus an
elected head of state.It was a brief piece about how a group of
economists believed the Queen could better inform herself about the
financial crisis and act as a focal point for different Government
departments. We cannot reflect every viewpoint within each item but
Justin Webb did challenge Peter Hennessey that some might see his ideas as a touch Ruritanian. The wider issue of the role of the monarchy is one we have covered before and will no doubt return to again in the future – with contributions from republicans as well as monarchists.
Yours sincerely
Dominic Groves
Duty Editor
‘Today’
Just a load of flannel then.
Did anyone catch prince Andrew on the TV news today? Apparently he thinks he is value for money, his travel expenses are the minimum necessary to enable him to fulfill his role, the monarchy is relevant in the 21st century and what we spend on each individual royal is minuscule. Naturally, all of these assertions by Andrew went unchallenged by the interviewer, which is what we can expect.
February 14th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Bob,
I was impressed by Andy Windsor’s interview. He is the best recruitment officer we have!
February 15th, 2010 at 10:44 am
I’ll write to the BBC later on today, thanks for posting that response, Bob
February 15th, 2010 at 11:56 am
What is it with TV journalists? As soon as they encounter a member of royalty all their otherwise instinctive investigative and probing skills disappear behind a sickly grin and deferential manner. It’s like watching what it might be like if the PM at question time only answered questions exclusively from his own party benches.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Bob,
The feeling of frustration is mutual!
A book I mentioned elsewhere on these pages (“Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell) describes how defference and fear of expression can be very costly and can actually bring down airliners.
In a chapter that examines the once appalling record of the Korean airline industry in the 1970s and 1980s (they have improved substantially and a now one of the safest airlines in the world), it was shown that the crew’s lack of assertiveness to challenge the captain’s authority was instrumental in a number of serious incidents.
Korean culture is very hierarchical and it is not considered good form to even speak in certain people’s company.
In other words, rather than explain to the captain in forthright terms that there was a serious problem and urgent action was required, the crew preferred to give the captain what he wanted to hear and this, in simple terms, allowed the plane to crash.
Whilst the actions of sycophantic reporting such as is delivered by the BBC might not cause an airliner to crash, the similarities of a culture that prevents proper investigative journalism is clear to see.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
It might be worth complaining to Newswatch. It is 0745 on Saturday mornings on BBC1 and also Friday evg. I think. The journalist in charge, Raymond Snoddy, used to be at the FT and is the only intellligent employee of the BBC I have noticed inc. M. Thompson. Any complaint he deals with it very fairly and usually gets a complainant on TV with a BBC person to reply. There is a Newswatch website.
he may well take up the issue of lack of royal impartiality.
@ 34 Bob Wiggin could send this more or less unaltered
@ 30 imatt could modify what is said here
@ 35 Martin G could modify this
Liam Finn could supply a typically fluent critique
The worst that happens is nothing and that happens anyway.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I’ve done as you suggested Jennifer.
Today, according to the TV news, a Saudi male has been found murdered in London. A suspect in custody is claiming to be a Saudi prince and the TV report says that if the suspect is indeed a Saudi royal this may prevent any future prosecution. What a sad indictment of our media, meekly reporting this possible escape from justice of a foreign royal without question, and what a sad indictment of our justice system if this travesty of justice ever happens. Sorry for going off topic.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
No member of any royal family anywhere should be immune from genuine prosecution for a crime. This is especially so if the crime is committed on British soil . What the hell has become of us !
February 18th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Well we’ve obviously allowed ourselves be lorded over by people with a similar pompous mindset to the soon to retire MP who made such an ass of himself today on radio5 Live. It does make you wonder how many share his viewpoint about us ‘different’ types.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Bob,
Hear! Hear!
The Hon. Member for Macclesfield came over as a complete buffoon in the interview earlier today which was entirely due to his own actions and beliefs.
Now, imagine if the monarchy and it’s supplants were subjected to the same thorough and responsible inquisitive journalism that’s typical of, say, John Humphrys on Radio 4.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Dear Martin and Bob, I did not hear this programme . Could you give me the gist of his remarks please ?
February 19th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Barry,
You’ll find an extract of the interview here:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qs5yw
The whole interview went on for several minutes. The Conservatives have since totally disowned the comments.
The interview has also been widely reported elsewhere.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:08 am
@ Barry
I wrote some notes when I listened back to it. Am yet to write a complaint:
British Academy economists come up with this idea that to prevent future economic crises a report should be made by the Cabinet secretary to Mrs Windsor on financial dealings because then people will act responsibly.
Justin Webb referred to her as “Her Majesty”. Do they refer to Gordon Brown as “the Rt Hon”?
Peter Hennessy
Admitted to being a monarchist
“Can we not forsee economic catastrophes without involving her majesty?” – weak question – ask instead “why should Mrs Windsor be involved in this?”
Man was suggesting that “it would sharpen minds” if a report was made by the Cabinet Secretary to the queen. No mention of how this would be the case. No mention of the fact that this should be done regardless, why should just because some old woman will receive a document this mean that these people work harder/work more in our interests?
“Remarkable range of really good work that’s being done across the Crown services.” – done by whom?
Sycophantic, deferential
JW: If people are reporting directly to the queen they have to publish information – why is this not done already?
Peter Hennessey: This is the era of freedom of information. (I fall off my chair laughing).
JW: “How’s it going to look abroad?”
“She’s a class act”
“If we had a president and wrote him a letter, I’m not sure it would have been box office”
James Naughty: “Well now that Peter Henessey has had a quiet word with Her Majesty on air all will be well.” Obviusly ironic and sarcastic but why should he be saying these things? Is that not bordering on expressing an opinion? Neutral coverage?
February 19th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
MARTIN, BARRY – “The whole interview went on for several minutes. The Conservatives have since totally disowned the comments.”
It didn’t take them long either, within a few minutes of Twitterton going off air in fact. And yes Martin, if the monarchy was properly scrutinized by the media, without its inbuilt deference to anything remotely monarchical, it would make interesting viewing/listening.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Dear Martin, Liam and Bob. Thank you very much for that . I will have a look at it.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Barry, This Mirror piece is a fair representation of the interview and the responses it elicited from various people ; http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/02/19/mr-snobby-115875-22053797/
Bob Crow’s comments – “Here’s another example of our ruling elite thinking they should get privileged treatment over and above the people who vote them into office.” – could easily be applied to the royals, (prince pompous and his minuscule expenses springs to mind), except of course that they are not elected.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Dear Bob, Thank you very much for that information.I have looked it up. I find such things unbelievable. I am pretty speechless,actually, with disgust. Recently I was in a standard train compartment en route for London and I overhead a businessman casually discussing deals of “thousands and millions “of pounds. If he can do such things,why can’t the politicians. Personally, I do not believe train compartments should be “classed” at all. Everywere should be the same, but then that’s just me !. I wonder what sort of world Winterton thinks exists,—perhaps one without children, people and some noise.!? That is real Life, Man . Actually it can be rather interesting on our trains at times. Not long ago, en route for London, I heard the sound of an accordion, and then a young Eastern European girl appeared and started playing some Slavic type music, including Shostakovich’s Waltz no 2. Great stuff,which was much appreciated. Totally illegal ,of course. On my final note, a serious one, I firmly believe that we need an effective purge of our so called politicians. To be fair ,some are very good. However so many have let us and themselves down very badly. Last week,in Waterstone’s Bookshop , I came across a very interesting book. I did not buy it, but I had a laugh with the shop assistant about it . The title——”CRAP M.P.s ” . This would not have appeared in the days of Maggie and Ted. How telling !
February 20th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
The crap MPs are symptomatic of our flawed system of government where they are not truly accountable to us the people. Over time it must obviously give some of those in safe seats the delusion that they are either untouchable, or in Twitterton’s case, a class above the rest of us. Imagine how being fawned over and deferred to all their lives may have effected the royals. It was no surprise to me when I read some years ago that prince Edward of Wessex, (Wessex, I ask you), refers to us mere mortals as grockles. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-79712/Edward-No-TV-shows.html
February 20th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
The subject of the pyschological effect upon people who are constantly fawned over and toadied to is a very interesting one. It has been mentioned here before. In the case of those who have achieved power quickly, like Hitler and Stalin etc, the effect has been one of pure developmental paranoia .Perhaps the same would apply to most humans under similar conditions. Therefore such power is a totally bad thing. In the case of those who have “Power Thrust Upon them “,( such as queens etc), perhaps there is no paranoia, but there is certainly an unwarranted self perception of superiority . Perhaps the case of filmstars ,media “buggers” etc, the paranoia does not seem to occur,but there often appears a truly revolting egoism and selfishness compounded by extremely “childish” ,spoilt behaviour. The upshot is that fawning,toadying and preferential treatment just ain’t no good for the Human Race,( unless ,like Simon, one knows one’s place !). Therefore it would be a good idea to start eliminating such tendendcies from our collective “psyche”. Concerning “Tedward” ,of Wessex, the powers that be will run out of ideas for titles soon,and will have to use obscure places such as Knotty Ash and Gurney Slade. Incidentally, there is no Lord Croydon yet. Who will get that I wonder? Lastly, I suppose we are lucky that Edward doesn’t think of us “a*******s” , let alone grockles.
February 21st, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Dunno if this is the best place to post this, but anyway…
Just heard on BBC R5L that Prince William is to become the President of BAFTA. I wonder what qualifies him for this position? Intersting that Philip had this position previously. Did no-one else get a look-in? Is no one else qualified?
February 21st, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Prince Edward must be crying in his coronet. All those endeavours with It’s a Knockout etc. for nought.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:03 am
I do not opine that every student in whole world has a passion of essay thesis accomplishing! However, persons that do not have writing skillfulness have to utilize a support of distinguished custom classification essays service and be happy with a result.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 am
I wanted to avoid seeing the BAFTA awards, having heard that William had been made President. Unfortunately, while changing channels, I
glimpsed Vanessa Redgrave receiving an award from William – and to my horror and nausea, dropping an enormous, demeaning curtsey!
So much for all that leftwing, SWP (Socialist Workers Party) republican history. To be fair to her, I don’t think she has recovered from her daughter’s death in the skiing accident. Even so, this is a prime example of how the royals try and bribe everyone with potential gongs. I hope and intend myself never to lose my not so much republican as democratic principles however aged and decrepit I get.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Almost forgot to mention that William is also president of the Football Association.
Again, why?
Why not a noted English footballer or manager such as Alan Shearer, Gary Lineker, Peter Shilton or one of the Charlton brothers. They may have declined due to other commitments. However, surely it would be a good idea to at least consider someone who has played and / or managed the game at the highest level in England.
Of course, I heard someone mention on the radio that William is a big Arsenal fan, although his Wiki page says he’s an Aston Villa fan?!!!!?
Well, great. Does this make William suitably qualified?
My brother is also a big football fan. Much more than myself, which is why I feel a bit of a fraud saying anything about football! However, my brother also coaches a bunch of teenage lads in football. Does this make him a suitable candidate?
It just goes to show that today’s world is too celeb obsessed. Rather than go for someone with a track record, organisations such as the FA as well as many charities, cash in on the celebrity styled ‘popularity’ of the Royals and try to turn it to their own advantage. Of course, if Jennifer’s experience is anything to go by, it won’t work on everyone!
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Why on earth is he a Villa fan? I have never, ever understood that.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Liam:
On a humorous note, let’s not hold Wills’s footballing loyalties against him (it’s Harry who supports Arsenal BTW iMatt) – you could just as easily ask why on earth I, a London-born West Countryman, support the Toon LMAO!
On a slightly more serious note: the BAFTA presidency thing could be dismissed as just a petty absurdity which will disappear when we get our republic, if it was customary for a royal to hold the post; but the fact that Wills was actually taking over from Attenborough, a distinguished veteran of British cinema, does indeed make it a tad nauseating.
On an even more serious note, is this a turn-up from the Beeb? http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/blog/article/407452/
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I bloody well will ask why that is?!! I at least thought you were from Geordieland originally.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:19 pm
I’ll send you an email to explain that one Liam!
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
I wonder if anyone has ever conducted a study to find out if there is any correlation between cancellations of planned royal visits and a bit of drizzle, or a slight frost, or a half inch of snow occurring on the day of the planned visit.
http://www.expressandstar.com/2010/02/18/princess-anne-visit-is-cancelled/
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 pm
To my mind, the curtsey is one of the most nauseating things there is . Also, to my mind , it is an unfeminine ,unflattering action in itself. It seems very clumsy.
Anything to do with official entertainment in our country is still riddled with sycophancy, unfortunately. ( Witness “royal command” this that or the other performances! ). Someone hit the nail on the head ,( i.Matt), when they mentioned the pseudo celebrity status of modern royalty. Celebrityism is just about keeping the royalty “concept and acceptance” afloat. The reason why royals need to become symbolic figureheads of all sorts of organisations is simply to try to justify their existence,in my opinion.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Thanks for the clarification on the footie teams Matt! Right team, wrong Royal or the other way round!
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:07 pm
“Why on earth is he a Villa fan? I have never, ever understood that.”
Probably because of the same reasons “Dave” Cameron like AVFC, Oatcakes & dislikes high speed trains.