11 Feb 2011
In campaigning it’s very useful to decide on a few core messages that you wish to communicate to the public, the media and politicians. Once these core messages are thrashed out and agreed, you can structure your campaign around them – helping to focus minds and ensure consistency. When deciding on a line to take on a particular issue, for example, you can refer back to your core messages for guidance.
Paring your campaign down to a few fundamental messages also increases your chances of making an impact. Keep repeating those messages – remorselessly if necessary – and they’re likely to stick in peoples’s minds.
This made me wonder what the monarchy’s core messages would be. Here are my suggestions:
The people can’t be trusted
Think of some really stupid people. Do you really want THEM voting for your head of state? Thought not.
Let someone else take the blame
Having a say on things like war and international treaties is a nice idea, but these things really are best left to politicians. Then at least you can blame them when it all goes wrong.
Britain is rubbish
Forget about our world class museums and galleries, our stunning countryside and architecture. Forget about all those inventions, discoveries and works of art that the British have contributed to the world. When push comes to shove, Britain is just a bit rubbish. Without the Windsors, the rest of the world would point and laugh at us.
Any more to add?
Tweet this post
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 11th, 2011 at 10:00 am and is filed under Monarchy myths.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are now closed.
Facebook
February 11th, 2011 at 10:21 am
All of you lot are the real parasites
We the royal family own England and it’s neighboring territories and it’s out of the kindness of our hearts that we allow you to walk breath and live on our fertile and prosperous lands.
This is fun ^.^
February 11th, 2011 at 10:54 am
“You are privileged to bow down to me”.
“You are privileged to polish my shoes”.
“We ARE Britain”.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:59 am
How about…
“Politics is Nasty…
Politicians are grubby creatures who are all without exception contaminated. Trying to get people’s vote is an undignified and sordid business. Far better to stick with someone who inherited the job from ma or pa rather than someone who has worked hard to gain a clear demonstrable mandate from a majority of their fellow citizens.”
I always shudder when I hear monarchists claiming that royals are “above politics”. It illustrates a cynicism with the whole process of political engagement that reveals a contempt for democracy itself. We should always target the “above politics” rhetoric – because you can’t have democracy without politics.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:04 am
I am such an exemplar of wisdom and judgement that I, and my successors, alone out of 60 million people am capable of meeting and advising the Prime Minister in secret.
The chamelion properties of the royals are such that they can change their Germanic name to Windsor and become English; adopt the kilt and become Scots at will, become Welsh and call the eldest son the Prince of Wales, insult minorities with stupid comments from the consort and have this seen as funny.
You are subjects, there to revere and pay for us so, suckers, don’t forget it.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:43 am
One message from the monarchy is that lesser beings should be satisfied believing firmly in the Emperor’s new clothes – that the best society, exemplified by Great Britain, is one divided by class and race in which untold wealth and power remains in the same hands from generation to generation.
Another is that merit is mystically endowed and has an obverse consisting of endless public gratitude.
February 11th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Because of the windsors the rest of the world laughs at us
February 11th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
The core message I take from the monarchy is one of ‘I want you to believe that we are here to serve you and your interests. We will not allow you to see how we go about it so you’ll have to trust us on that’.
Everything they do (visibly at least) appears carefully designed and orchestrated to maintain a specific image; the one they wish us to hold dear.
The message I believe the monarchy wants to sends out to the rest of the world is that they are universally popular and supported at home. But I believ the messageg they actually send out abroad is that despite all the great things that go on in Britain and that Britain has achieved, Britain is still a wee bit backwards and hasn’t really moved in a great deal in the 20th Century.
February 11th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
To expand on what James and Conrad have said: the monarchy tells us that we should simultaneously hate politicians AND be happy for them to have absolute power; because when things go wrong, not only can we just blame the politicians for everything, we can also look to the royals for comfort, because they’re above politics so they’re not to blame for any of our woes (despite the fact that the Queen has signed every bill passed by Parliament, and assented to every executive order, throughout her reign.) And if we point that out, then the monarchy & its apologists shift the goalposts and tell us, “but that’s democracy – you voted for that government, it’s your responsibility, why should we bail you out?”
February 11th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
As long as the institution survives it doesn’t matter who’s in charge.
This of course means monarchists are hypocrites as they seem to care who will take the realms when we become a republic.
February 11th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Wow.
I am shocked by the vitriol here.
James, you are miles off. Some foolish people might use the three points you suggest as part of an ill-thought out argument for the monarchy but I’ll give £25 to Naomi House if you can reply with one link with proof that any of the royals have ever said what you suggest they have thought as ‘core messages’.
We do live in a democracy. The Queen does not go against the will of parilament. Nor should she.
In relation to the war, other than member of the royals in the services fighting, we are well past the days of the King leading the charge with a sword held high. If our democratically elected leaders declare war, that’s the way it is. You can’t complain that she sticks her oar in one minute and then that she doesn’t have an opinion the next.
1…“You are privileged to bow down to me”.
2…“You are privileged to polish my shoes”.
3…”Politicians are grubby creatures who are all without exception contaminated. Trying to get people’s vote is an undignified and sordid business. Far better to stick with someone who inherited the job from ma or pa rather than someone who has worked hard to gain a clear demonstrable mandate from a majority of their fellow citizens.”
4…”I am such an exemplar of wisdom and judgement that I, and my successors, alone out of 60 million people am capable of meeting and advising the Prime Minister in secret”
5…”All of you lot are the real parasites”
6…”We the royal family own England and it’s neighboring territories and it’s out of the kindness of our hearts that we allow you to walk breath and live on our fertile and prosperous lands.”
Do ANY of you have any EVIDENCE that any of the royals actually think or say ANY of this or is this some bizarre conspriracy theory based circumstantial conjecture that makes you all feel better?
February 11th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Ruddlittle
I’m just as shocked to think you believe the royals consider us to be their equals.
February 11th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
The article isn’t about what the Royals say, Rudd; rather about the message that the existence of the Monarchy says to the public.
February 11th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
I shall presume then, Ruddlittle, that my comments are valid shall I? This article does not document what the Windsors have said, but asks for suggestions regarding what may be inferred from their attitude to their ‘subjects’ within the appalling system they exemplify.
February 11th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
What we’re doing, is taking some of the points made
by monarchists and pushing them to their logical
conclusion.
Although some of the BML types spout stuff pretty similar to the comments above with straight faces.
Most royals of course do not bother to defend themselves at all – regarding self justification as either unnecessary and/or beneath their dignity. If, however, what wikileaks reports about Prince Andrew’s sense of genetic entitlement is at all representative of what other royals think and say, however, then the exaggerated comments above are scarcely an exaggeration.
February 11th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Hey Rudd, I’m not having a pop at you, I like your spunk and I too think the piece at the top is a bit iffy (poorly written and overtones of Josef Goebbels) but Prince Andrew is on the record as using the term ‘genetics’ as justification for his role as trade ambassador. Which seems to vindicate some of the imaginative flights of fancy and extrapolations to places unknown on the blog.
I think it’s quite well established that he used the word.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222627/Prince-Andrew-defends-bankers-bonuses-economy-stays-mired-recession.html
Cheques and postal orders should be made out to me.
February 11th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Evidence of the royals’ contempt for the rest of us ;
Wasn’t it prince Andrew who said ” I was brought up to do this sort of work. It is training, experience and genetics. We offer consistency and regularity. We have been around for a long time and will be around for a long time. We are not going to disappear. I have a family pedigree that allows me time to build up relationships.” Yes it sounds like something he would say doesn’t it, and that’s because he did say it.
Isn’t it prince Edward who refers to the rest of us as grockles? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-79712/Edward-No-TV-shows.html
Wasn’t it prince Philip who, during the recession in the eighties said “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed.”
What a nice family, bastion of all things British, paragons of virtue and exemplars of taste.
February 11th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Apologies for being slightly off topic but I just have to share this with you as it made me smile. It’s by Peter Rhodes’ from his column in my local paper tonight;
The prince of Wales (two homes, Bentley, Aston Martin, 140 staff and Duchy of Cornwall) says he wants to see a shift away from the consumer society to make it ‘cool to use less stuff.’ To his credit, he uses only tiny quantities of common sense.
Funny.
February 11th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Yes, I’ve got one to add.
Four. The Royal Family and the peerage are investitures of ancient tradition, a veil without which the British people would be exposed to the barefaced political society that exists in America, and deprived of their long-held understanding of honor and chivalry. Of course that’s just more monarchist nonsense, but when you do institute electoral-style parties are you going to demand they keep their focus on the issues of politics themselves or just let it all go back to wing-style politics?
February 11th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
James wasn’t asking what the royals’ core message might be, but the monarchy’s. I don’t see them as the same thing. The monarchy is a monolithic, oppressive, stifling, suffocating, poisonous institution populated by, to all in tents and porpoises, sycophantic staff and nameless and faceless officials hiding behind unaccountable finances and exemption from Freedom of Information rules. One small set of people who are told from birth how special they are and how entitled to their position, privilege, wealth and power and another set of people who enjoy fawning about after them, together with, I strongly suspect, some outright villains ready to take advantage of the ripe opportunities such a set up will throw their way. The monarchy is not embodied in the persons of the family – the line has dried up before and the people in the establishment will install someone else who suits them, not even bothering that much about the succession. Personally I find the core message of the monarchy to be we will bore you to death with our mediocre irrelevance and tedious necroid ritual. No wonder a soldier keeled over in a faint at the opening of parliament waiting on a stair for Liz to trail past. Welcome to the monarchy, you will all die of boredom.
February 11th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
@Marjory Smith
‘to all in tents and porpoises’
What a lovely inclusive thought. I, for one, support it.
February 11th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Yes Bob thats right but Chaz can feel free to ladle on as much hypocrisy as he wants.
Another lesser known key message of the monarchy is that we shouldn’t get to know the real costs. One thing that I had noticed in the Daily Mail article quoted by The Lard is that Andrew is said to have made 23 visits in his capacity as special trade representative (2009) at a cost of £ 140,000. As we know these visits are very well staffed and are sometimes proceeded by a 2-3 day fact finding tour by staff – it isn’t hard to work out that these figures are very distorted – £ 6087 per trip ? – I don’t think so. The real cost of this service has to include all travel by all parties involved all accomodation and all expenses incurred – no way is that £ 6087. In any case the figure is meaningless if we don’t have an estimate of what the financial benefits to the country are.
Lets say that the number of staff supporting Head of State Services The Royal Household) is 1200 – 450 are paid directly out of Departmental Funds leaving 750 directly paid by the Royal Household lets assume average wages – I think that Royal Staff are actually quite poorly paid but will use the average to include the on costs – I make staff costs alone to be 18 million for the Royal Household and a further 12 million for the other 450 plus on costs of 20 percent 2.4 million 18 + 12 + 2.4 Thats 32.4 Million a year just in staffing. These are my guesses and I wonder if the are that far out.
I could go on – but for a country our size we have a phenomenally expensive Head of State Service – no way is it good value even with commonsense estimates based on declared staffing and residences –
The people can’t be trusted to know the truth – if they knew the real figures rather than the silly 62p a head or so that the Palace spins every year they would be appalled.
Let someone else take tha blame – absolutely – the Windsors are accountable for nothing.
Britain is rubbish – that is the message and in the last year or so I have noticed a lot of the family scrambling around to ‘make themselves useful’ – they are perfectly aware that Liz can’t last for ever and they are trying to foist yet another generation on us.
February 11th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
lard,
Cracking link, worthy of a cheque to Naomi House (even though it didn’t really meet the criteria of the challenge) so I will send one on Monday. That WAS a dopey thing to say.
Cbrunstrom
“What we’re doing, is taking some of the points made
by monarchists and pushing them to their logical
conclusion”
Be careful – what you’re doing is taking some of the points made by fools and pushing them to their logical conclusions.
If the population really believed the monarchy thought like that, getting a republic would be a walkover, but I suspect most monarchists are more reasonable and think such ideas are as unacceptable as you do (nearly).
February 11th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
@ Carole
Love on ya, Carole. I’m sure you don’t need me to defend you. I tend to like the monarchists on this site. Don’t think I’ve ever seen a better example of relentless unswerving politeness than Richard Rodgers. Industrial quantities of politeness. His mother should be proud.
I think David was just winding you up-he’s a mischievous one. Why can’t everyone just love each other, er…..man? As sick and unholy as it sounds, I like ‘im-I’m actually not sure he IS a monarchist. He’s in a state of what they call cognitive dissonance. Oh yes. My reading of him is that he’s a proto – republican just waiting for the right gentle, warm, loving environment to ‘come out’.
@Ruddlittle
Rudd-send the money to me. Care of the Old Vicarage at Grantchester. I did the legwork. I can buy a lot of pretty things with that money.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
@ Rudd,
“Do ANY of you have any EVIDENCE that any of the royals actually think or say ANY of this or is this some bizarre conspriracy theory based circumstantial conjecture that makes you all feel better?”
William Shwacross’s biography of the Queen Mother includes instances of bizarre behaviour including the QM – who didn’t raise her children herself, but only spent an hour a day with them – inviting the kids to chant “We are not supposed to be normal. We are not supposed to be normal.”
…. et alia.
February 11th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
“We do live in a democracy.”
No we don’t. Sorry to burst your bubble but a constitutional monarchy is most definitely not a democracy. In fact, our country does not meet any of the necessary criteria. Do not confuse freedom of speech, and being granted the right to vote every few years, with democracy. They are not the same.
When every public office is filled with someone who has a popular mandate and a desire to be there, and every major policy put to the people to vote on, only then can we call ourselves a democracy.
As has been mentioned elsewhere on this site, the PM is King in all but name, as the power derives from the crown instead of being granted from us, the people. That’s why the government can do whatever the hell they like, for example closing down respites for the disabled (I have a relative who became a victim of this) and then sparing no expense for the wedding in april.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
@ Lard I agree about David – definitely a little beak pecking away at the shell there – basically there is nothing to dislike about Republicans and the only problem with becoming one is that it rids the blog of one less person to debate with.
February 11th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
I want to have a shot at describing our democracy. Its a representative democray where we choose the people who will go to parliament but to do this we have to make a judgement about the degree to which the candiate can represent both us personally and the national interest through their party affiliation. Party affiliation unfortunately trumps our personal representation and we know that we are voting for people who when push comes to shove cannot effectively represent our personal concerns as accurately as we would like. I’m not bothered whether it is by proportional voting or constituency – I am bothered about whether my best interests will be appropriately defended as a citizen and this can’t happen in our system. The other problem is readily stated again and again on our site – as power does not emanate from the people but from the crown we have an out of control executive who can do pretty much what they like.
February 12th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Tim Sharp,
I’m not so worried by party affiliations. They are fairly inevitable in any system of representative government, and they go some way to dramatising and formalising some quite fundamental choices about national governance. If politics were only about fixing pot holes in Penzance or waste incinerators in Inverness, then you wouldn’t need political parties, only constutuency representatives with local wish lists.
But in fact people have radically different views as to what constitutes the common good – what a “successful” Britain means – how public money should be spent etc. etc.
Now I would concede that there’s far more scope for private member’s bills and for free votes than is common at present.
I think there are two things needed for a healthy democracy: a well informed political culture and an opinionated electorate who feel they can express their views freely and secondly a transparent written constitution with all public offices open to all citizens.
I do believe that Britain (on the whole) has the first but not the second. We have very little formal civic protection in Britain, but rely too heavily on precedent and common sense to keep our executive within bounds.
As Graham has written more than once – the real problem with the monarchy is its relationship with “the crown” – an abstract but potent concept that reinforces “top down” assumptions of governance that promote secrecy and unaccountability.
If we had a document in which popular sovereignty was explicitly defined as the basis of all other political authority, then parliament would be strengthened not weakened because it would have greater legitimacy.
But let’s keep asking the question of people we meet “what sounds more inspiring – citizen of a republic – or – subject of a hereditary dynasty”?
February 12th, 2011 at 10:49 am
I have been following this blog for about a year now and have found it most enlightning and informative.
I thought I might share with you an incident that happened recently which again shows the uphill battle in changing some peoples views.
I attended a Sunday drinks party where the average age was about 70/75, all pillars of the local community.
The conversation turned to a local MP who refuses to stand when the national anthem is played and is apparently quite forthright in his views on the royal family. You would have thought the man was a terrorist!the way his character was discussed.
Anyway I pointed out that at least in this country we still have freedom of speech to discuss the head of state whereas in several African countries I have worked over the years you would be flung in jail for not showing due respect.
Unfortunately none of the other guests could see my point and went on to discuss how better the country would be run if it was left to the house of lords!!
Keep up the good work.
February 12th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
BBC WATCH: Royal Wedding – What are royal advisors for?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12438749
“William’s ultimate role is in his genes.”
This article is biased because it does not represent those of us who find the above statement preposterous wnd wholly innacurate. It proposes that birthright is assumed to be a valid method of appointing a head of state.
“When Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton was appointed Prince William and Prince Harry’s private secretary, he possessed some crucial attributes…The old Etonian spoke their “language”.”
This suggests that, in a divided society, not only are the Windsors a breed apart, but a special type of public-school educated person is needed as an interface. It also endorses Eton as typical of the sort of establishment likely to provide one, making a distinction between state and private education systems.
“Aside from any potential frustrations, these three men [Pinkerton, Manning and Head] have an historic opportunity to shape the future of the British monarchy.”
This proposes that these unelected mandarins are carrying our some sort of required role on behalf of the British public. No alternative position has been provided by the BBC. The report remains unbalanced in its coverage and ignores the concerns of republicans and those who feel that democracy is not well sevred by a monarchical system.
February 12th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
The Lessons of Monarchy;
Lesson 1: This is a White, Christian Country – all the rest is mere empire-in-the-wrong-place.
Lesson 2: You’re Shit, And We Know You Are. [Alternative monarchist national anthem, perhaps?]
February 12th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
@ cb
Thank you for that clear and thoughtful approach. I think we do a lot better in terms of liberties than many places in the world and I am always grateful that I live in the UK because of that. But transparency in government is not one of the UK’s strong points.
@ Phaedra
This is a disappointing class ridden piece of propaganda with all of the usual problems. Genetics ? as someone said on the facebook page there is a gene for royalty now hmmm ? Add to which we have the implicit assumption that the system will never change – and all of the macho posturing around capable military types being in charge with their auras of authority. I feel upset that it is possible to write such a thing with a straight face – and at the final celebrant flourish I almost bought my tea up.
February 12th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
@Tim Sharp.
I know! In four days of looking I have discovered as many articles like this produced on line by the BBC. Graham et al are right. This is definitely an area we must monitor closely. To highlight it strikes at the heart of the subliminal propaganda machine. On the face of it, if you are a default-monarchist what’s not to like? The background music is playing quietly exactly the sort of dopey refrain they are all used to hearing.
The content of these pieces is saccharine, risible, biased, lacking a sense of balance and toadying. The authors assume a compliant, interested and impressed readership.
February 12th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
To: peter.hunt@bbc.co.uk
Dear Peter,
I am a member of Republic and our campaign manager recently wrote to the BBC on behalf of our membership. Our complaint is that the BBC acts as a celebrant for the monarchy.
Many people do believe that the selection of head of state in the UK by hereditary is not appropriate for the 21st Century. Pieces such as yours that assume that William will be King – he may be or he may not be – but it isn’t the role of the BBC to say that he will any more than it is the role of the BBC to say that Labour will form the next government.
In addition you speculate on genetic suitability for the role – I suppose in one sense you are right in that William won that bit of the genetic lottery not I suppose with any great attempt at trying– on the other hand aren’t you reinforcing an idea that their might be superior people (members of the royal family) and therefore inferior people (the rest of us including yourself) ?
Can’t Royal stories be handled with less hyperbole, less of an assumption that the Royals are uncritically admired and with a touch less inappropriate awe ?
Best wishes
Tim Sharp
February 13th, 2011 at 1:43 am
Nice letter Tim. Sounds nice and balanced and polite and non-cranky, so harder for them to dismiss. Let me see the reply when it comes. I want to see what it reveals about the BBC mindset. Ideally, the BBC need something to put the fear of God in them, perhaps dark hints of a collective campaign of license fee non-payment by republicans until reportage of the royals gets on nodding terms with reality. Shalom.
February 13th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Excellent Tim. I have also complained via their website and no doubt with receive the usual wet reply in due course! I am hoping that Republic’s BBC Watch will result in the sort of pressure Lardy has outlined.
February 13th, 2011 at 11:55 am
I need a new keyboard or a new brain though – there is always a mistake or three – but thank you – I do try and be polite and reasonable
February 13th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Dear RuddLittle:
“I am shocked by the vitriol here.
1…“You are privileged to bow down to me”.
2…“You are privileged to polish my shoes”.
Do ANY of you have any EVIDENCE that any of the royals actually think or say ANY of this or is this some bizarre conspriracy theory based circumstantial conjecture that makes you all feel better?”
Well, Rudd, I can certainly provide answers to my points.
1. Why are people advised to bow or curtsey to a member of the royal family and address them as “Majesty” or “Royal Highness”?
2. I read in a book that apparantly only one military officer is allowed (yes, allowed) to polish Charles’s shoes.
You might be shocked by the vitriol here, but we are equally shocked as to the royals’ extravagance and privileged lifestyles.
February 14th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Hi everyone –
Peter Hunt wrote back to me (for which he gets a merit to add to his demerit). As I guess he may have written differently had he thought I would have pasted here – I won’t. In his opinion he is aware that not everyone is a fan of the WIndsors. He feels that as things stand William will be King so he is not sorry. He doesn’t think the BBC use a tone of inappropriate awe. He disputes that the use of the term genetics in his piece implies inferior and superior beings.
To which I replied:
Dear Peter
Thank you so much for responding personally I really do appreciate it. Republic is largely composed of people who think the UK can do a lot better than the Windsors. We believe it is time to really start getting the head of state issue through to the public in a way that they can think about. We do obviously believe that the BBC acts in an inappropriately celebrant way and we believe that this suppresses a wider debate and reinforces a culture of not being sufficiently critical of either the institution or the family’s fitness for the role. You’ll appreciate that any mention of genetics can be misconstrued and what you said is still not that clear to me.
Many thanks for replying the fact that you did says a lot for you.
All the best Tim
Graham is of course the expert in these matters but personally I learnt from this that writing to the journalist using the format firstname.surname@bbc.co.uk does actually get to their desk. Having got that access stay polite, be firm and thank them for their reply.
February 15th, 2011 at 7:27 am
Tim Sharp
Republic is largely composed of people who think the UK can do a lot better than the Windsors.
That’s the pity of it; Windsor-bashing is a full-time occupation for far too many contributors. Face it, they have been put in that position and carry on as best they can. They’re not the wealthiest people in the world; God knows there are industrialists and bankers worth far more and who keep large households. If it’s a change in the system of government that’s wanted, then leave the personalities out of it: “Because of the windsors the rest of the world laughs at us.” Statements like that simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
By coincidence, I am re-watching the TV series House of Cards and it is something which might give a clue as to how a parliamentary democracy really works. Fiction of course, but the broad strokes are there, particularly with regard to the monarchy. Worth watching if you can find it. Politicians find the Monarchy very convenient!
As an addendum – I wonder if there is any extant republic which contributors actually admire?
February 15th, 2011 at 7:58 am
David – Republic is a broad alliance of people who have a wide range of motivations for wanting a republic. By far the most prevalent motivation is a desire for a better democracy.
You’re quite right in suggesting that politicians find the monarchy convenient. This is a politicians’ monarchy and it is used by politicians to sustain their power and their own sense of prestige.
February 15th, 2011 at 9:57 am
BBC Watch:
http://blogs.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2011/02/14/prince-harry-kates-sis-selected-as-best-man-maid-of-honor/
“Ooooh, we can only imagine what kind of toast Harry will make in honor of William and his new sister-in-law. We’re guessing he and Philippa will thoroughly enjoy planning their siblings’ respective stag and hen parties.”
My giddy aunt Mackenzie Wilson…
February 15th, 2011 at 10:05 am
@ David
“I am re-watching the TV series House of Cards and it is something which might give a clue as to how a parliamentary democracy really works”
You should also watch “A Very British Coup” written by Chris Mullen (himself a politician).
Whilst probably a little dated in 2011, the TV version differs from the novel by introducing a “conspiracy theory” although the gist of how government works as presented by the writer is an interesting one.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:09 am
BBC watch:
http://blogs.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2011/02/14/prince-harry-kates-sis-selected-as-best-man-maid-of-honor/#comment-2138
@Anne. Well, we couldn’t be more proud of him. It’s nice to know that an army of Metropolitan Police bodyguards are acting as wet nurses at public expense at a time when the police in Britain is undergoing severe cuts and communities are at their wits’ end.
“One clubber said: ‘We were a bit shocked to see a prince in a place like this but he went down a storm. He had a few drinks too, and was more than a little worse for wear by the end of the night.’ Guests were treated to a burlesque show performed by gay men, women and transgender artists…Days earlier, he had been at pains to avoid being pictured leaving a different bar.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1356832/Chelsy-Davy-enjoys-pizza-date-Prince-Harry-leaving-trip-New-York.html
February 15th, 2011 at 10:17 am
@Phaedra
There’s some kind of vomitsome Jane Austen-royal wedding crossover going on with these pages. Yuk.
And the comments afterwards-
‘I know Princess Diana will be looking down on them with love’-
Pass the sick bag, Alice!
February 15th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Ah, Jane Austen,
She had a rather awkward relationship with monarchy. The Prince Regent asked her to write a historical romance about the House of Brunswick… a horrific idea that she had no intention of ever bringing to life.
Indeed, the Prince Regent (whose Times obituary is a masterpiece of English prose) represented everything Austen hated in many ways – selfishness, irresponsibility, conspicuous consumption, vulgarity…
I’d like to save Jane Austen from the royals if at all possible. I gave a talk in Oxford a few weeks ago on Jane Austen and Cricket… must knock the thing into better shape.
But we need to save more of our writers from royalist appropriation.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:03 am
David Cunard:
“That’s the pity of it; Windsor-bashing is a full-time occupation for far too many contributors. Face it, they have been put in that position and carry on as best they can.”
Oh PLEASE!! Don’t make me laugh! Oh yes they’ve been put in that position, and they know which side their bread’s buttered. They want to remain in that very feathered nest because it keeps them sitting pretty living the lives of billionaires.
“They’re not the wealthiest people in the world; God knows there are industrialists and bankers worth far more and who keep large households.”
Sorry, but they certainly live a lifestyle far exceeding even the wealthiest of the world. For a start: the monarch has full and exclusive use of a London palace and the largest occupied castle in the world, and full access and enjoyment of such objects of the Royal Collection – worth an estimated £10bn. All of this belongs to the state, but she has and enjoys them as though they were her own. Then there’s Kensington palace and St James’s palace which the rest of her family live in.
Then there’s private fortune. She receives around £10m a year PRIVATE income from the Duchy of Lancaster. And people quibble about bankers getting £500,000. Not to mention the millions and millions she must have inherited from previous monarchs (and those inheritances weren’t subject to tax either). From the Queen Mother alone she managed to writhe out of paying £20m in just tax alone! And she will have received a substantial inheritance from her father. He was wealthy enough to be able to buy country estates from his brother when he abdicated.
And then of course she owns and runs two private estates of her own – Balmoral and Sandringham, which cost at least £1m to run per year. Those estates alone, with their country houses and acres of land will easily run into the hundreds of millions (I read somewhere Balmoral is easily worth £160m).
All of these assets that either are her own or she is able to have and enjoy as if they were her own. run into the billions. Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, Birkhall, Highgrove, Royal Lodge, Windsor …. I doubt there are any other families in the world who can match that list.
So if you can name a banker or industrialist that has an equally profligate lifestyle, I’d like to know who they are, because I can’t think of any.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:06 am
David Cunard:
“If it’s a change in the system of government that’s wanted, then leave the personalities out of it”
We’ll leave personalities out of it when you do. Double standard eh – it’s perfectly allright to use personalities to promote the monarchy, but not to bash it. It works both ways I’m afraid!
February 15th, 2011 at 11:20 am
@Conrad
Hmmm…don’t think you could claim JA as any kind of egalitarian. She was probably pro monarchist as anyone of her class would have been at the time , just disgusted with the moral character of the regent. There’s an excellent book -which I now can’t find – which talks about Jane from a Marxist perspective. It bemoans how JA film adaptations whitewash how cruelly indifferent to the working class JA is in her novels. One example is a scene with Colin Firth (him again) driving on a coach and horses to Lyme Hall..in the film you see the workers on the estate milling around in the background, but in the actual novel there’s no virtually no mention of the oiks at all. I think it’s a cruelly narrow social world with Austen, not comparable to the rich one of Dickens. Bit off topic now….never lose any opportunity to stick the knife into Austen, I say.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:27 am
Excellent, Jammydodger! Thought that was David C at his weakest ebb myself. No public engagements for the queen, phillip, william, harry etc until the wedding either.
February 15th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Must defend Jane Austen.
Must not clog the thread.
Lardy – we must talk about this some other time.
February 15th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
BBC Watch:
“It seems that Kate has been doing some house hunting, The Daily Mail reports. While she (Middleton) liked the size of Princess Diana’s apartment at Kensington Palace, Kate is particularly fond of the quarters that once belonged to the late Princess Margaret (Queen Elizabeth’s younger sister), known as Apartment 1A. The palace is currently undergoing a ₤12 million ($19 million) renovation. ‘Kate loves the fact the palace is close to all her favorite shops but is still private,’ a source says.”
OH! So we really ARE all ‘in it’ together then…
http://blogs.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2011/02/14/royal-roundup-william-and-kate-featured-in-valentines-day-stunt/
February 15th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Graham Smith
In which case, however persuasive your arguments may be, it would appear that the present arrangement is self-sustaining. How then do you propose that a government would proceed? Calling for a referendum would appear to be political suicide since it would not be in their best interest to abolish the status quo. I’ve always thought it curious that almost as long as the Socialist and/or Labour Parties have been in existence, their members have rarely been reluctant to accept a title or even the lowest honour. Only a very few put principle first. Although OT, I once had a correspondence with the late Conrad Swan, Garter King of Arms – he (a Canadian) was of the opinion that even Mister was a title. But Mister is rarely thought to be quite as good as the others. To be given official recognition of something etter is such a temptation, as the cash-for hours scandal showed.
Martin G
It’s on my list of ‘to be watched’.
Jammydodger
Show me any post of mine in which I have vilified someone in public life. Unless of course you refer broadly to supporters of the monarchy; however, you should not tar everyone with the same brush.
Bernard Madoff comes to mind . . . And, although with lesser funds, the late Brian Epstein was a candidate – footmen in livery no less! I don’t think that even the Queen goes to such excess when dining at home.
February 15th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
I’ve never been that impressed by the “they can’t answer back argument”.
They agree to the wealth and the lifestyle and the constant deference – they should be able to handle some criticism.
My tedious refrain – “royalty – a dirty job but nobody has to do it.”
If any of them were to quit the civil list and abdicate all pretensions to royal succession, I’d be their biggest champion and protector.
February 15th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
@ David Cunard,
“I’ve always thought it curious that almost as long as the Socialist and/or Labour Parties have been in existence, their members have rarely been reluctant to accept a title or even the lowest honour”
Touche! You are quite right.
One would have thought that the likes of John Prescott (or Lord whatever he is called now) would have been just a little less avaricious to accept a title in favour of the principles that made him an MP in the first place.
And this is the frustration of it all.
Given the very radical Labour Manifesto which won the 1945 election (which we have already discussed at length on an earlier blog), there is an element of surprise in that the British electorate are perhaps not as cut and dried as politicians might think.
February 16th, 2011 at 9:33 am
“A gift for the newlyweds is a political issue in Berkshire county, located about 60 miles east of London. [in the North Sea] The Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire, Mary Bayliss, wrote to all the towns in the district, asking them to chip-in to buy a silver dish. Jim Lyons
http://blogs.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2011/02/11/royal-roundup-the-savory-scoop-on-kates-luncheon-with-camilla/#comment-2218
Typical. Lord’s Lieutentant are possible the worst example of localised, toadying elitism imaginable. Militarised and presumptuous they embody the system of grace and favour appointees beloved of this undemocratic system. They claim to be drawn from all sections of society, but actually consist of very wealthy, well-connected lords, ladies, knights, retired generals et al. The exist in every country in Great Britain and represent the Windsor dynasts when they can’t be bothered to attend functions. Nobody has asked for them. We are all encouraged to feel excited when they turn up at a local fete and to see them as something special, which they are not.
The billionaire Windsors of course absolutely need another silver dish, paid for out of public funds. Please visit http://www.republic.org.uk/ for a sane view of the servile nonsense surrounding monarchy.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:32 am
BBC Watch: Mercifully, not ALL Americans are impressed with the BBC coverage either it seems. What DOES this relentless, saccharine coverage make us look like internationally?
SarainDC
Posted February 9th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Please BBC USA do NOT make the mistake of assuming the whole of the United States cares a dime about this wedding!! Even some of my own British friends are already sick of the amount of coverage its getting here. Some of them moved away from the UK to get away from all the obsessions there with the royal family. Not everyone in America could be bothered about this wedding, these people, what dress, what cake. Its so typically british to shove it down everyones throats!!! restrict your coverage to BBC UK and leave the rest of us alone – if we’re bothered about it we will log onto the UK websites – its not the wedding of the century for the USA and we have more things to worry about than the extravagant waste of money!!!
DAW88
Posted February 9th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
I agree totally with you SarainDC. They don’t do enough for their own people in the UK. They need to use that money and help their people. It is the same way here in America. We help a lot of other countries. When it comes to our people they don’t do a darn thing for them. We too have a lot of unemployment, homeless, and hungry people and they don’t seem to want to try and fix the problems here. We are in Trillions of debt in this country. I love my country but enough is enough. Furthermore I didn’t get up that early in the morning when Charles and Diana’s wedding took place. I don’t plan on getting up early for William and Kates wedding.
http://blogs.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2011/02/09/brides-checklist-let-william-and-kate-eat-cake/#comment-2221
February 16th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Bah,
Just heard that Wills and Kate will be in Canada – late June early July time. So will I – which means as a Brit I’ll have to take a deal of abuse from my angry Canadian friends and relatives.
February 16th, 2011 at 11:11 am
Martin G. You hit the target with these socialists. Hugh Scanlon, left wing House of Lords critic becoming Lord Scanlon. However, Jack Jones refused a so called honour and works for old people.
February 16th, 2011 at 11:17 am
@Phaedra: A gift for the newly weds. Kudos I suppose for a sycophantic Lord Lieutenant anxious to emphasise his loyalty to these over indulged 20 year olds. Meanwhile, the sackings, cut backs and general misery continues while the Royal appeasers, including the BBC, tell us “we can all forget our troubles and join in the rejoicing.” Your mind would have to be numbed by years of brainwashing to buy into this charade.
February 16th, 2011 at 11:31 am
“They [the Windsors are] not the wealthiest people in the world.” David Cunard
Almost certainly not, and it would not matter one iota if they were, as far as their illegitimacy is concerned. You, of course, have absolutely no way of knowing just how much money they have. Based on current funding, during his lifetime Charles has plundered the equivalent of around £1 billion from the Duchy of course.
February 16th, 2011 at 11:47 am
The world’s wealthiest are always good at hiding their wealth for legal and political purposes. Remember when Paul MacCartney suddenly plummeted down the rich list in the year of his divorce? If MacCartney can hide it from Heather, then the royals can (and do) certainly hide it from us.
The pretence that most of their palaces and perks and treasures belong “to the nation” is what allows them to plead relative poverty. As a nation, I think we need to assert our ownership of these assets. Maybe ask to see a rent book?
February 16th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
BBC Watch:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12485015
This item is biased because it adopts a celebratory tone and claims a “very close relationship with the Royal Family”. Again there is no balanced view.
It makes no mention of the results of a 2010 poll by Angus Reid which found that whilst a percentage held favourable views on some members of the Windsor family, more than two-thirds of Canadians, a 69% majority, would like to see a Canadian serving as Canada’s head of state, and a 52% majority of Canadians support reopening the constitutional debate to discuss replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state, while only 32% oppose doing so.
http://www.visioncritical.com/public-opinion/3031/canadians-divided-over-having-a-monarch-or-an-elected-head-of-state/
February 16th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
That should be “…reports a very close relationship with the Royal Family”.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Yeah – I live in Canada for several months of the year and I know I’m going to get grief this summer – “we’ve got to fund your wretched royals as they tour Canada..” etc.
Not that Kate and Wills will really tour Canada as royals are not welcome in Quebec. An elected head of state for Canada would actually strengthen the bilingual federal union they have.
Just as (we believe) an unelected head of state for Britain does nothing for Anglo-Scottish-Welsh relations.
February 16th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Since I am on this site today, I thought I’d look at more comments in order to pass a few minutes. Prince William and his wife-to-be were invited by the Canadian government, presumably who know whether or not this would be generally popular. Some readers may recall that I have been watching the series “House of Cards”, which in the second part introduces Sarah Harding, a professional pollster. She says – and there is no reason to doubt the author – that she can deliver any result required. Frankly, I wouldn’t give much credence to any of them. Even elections can be suspect.
Concerning expense, I urge readers to consider that of the state visit by the Pope to the United Kingdom – almost seven million pounds, exclusive of security. No outcry about that!! And just for a few days. Something that was arranged by the former Labour Government.
With regard to Lords Lieutenant and their circle of “very wealthy, well-connected lords, ladies, knights, retired generals et al” – removing the monarchy wouldn’t change any of that. The form of address might, but like attracts like. Even where titles are officially non-existent, they continue to be used. Regrettably, even in the USA they exist. Anything to differentiate “us” from “them”. Sports chiefs like to be addressed as “Commissioner”, judges and some political folk like “Your Honor” and so it goes, even to the weatherman on TV – “I’m Chief Meteorologist so-and so”. When a president leaves office – by losing an election or by resignation, he is still known as “president” whoever. The gap between different socio-economic groups will be in evidence regardless of the political system – and an elected or appointed head of state would continue to have the flatterers and self-serving. It’s just the nature of the human race. I don’t know for certain, but in the heyday of the Kremlin I feel sure that deference to the party chiefs was essential, despite the universal term ‘comrade’.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Re. Canada –
Harper’s is a minority government. The idea that governments always “get it right” in popular terms is, of course false. The CBC website will give a sample of a range of responses to the visit.
Since Canada is mentioned however, it’s worth noting that when Ontario hosted the G7 last summer, then was a full debate about the security costs – both inside and outside parliament.
Britons have been denied this right – Cameron has written a blank cheque in our name to cover security costs for the royal wedding and no discussion is forthcoming.
February 17th, 2011 at 3:40 am
cbrunstrom
“Cameron has written a blank cheque in our name to cover security costs for the royal wedding and no discussion is forthcoming.”
And Brown wrote the promissory note for cost of the state visit of the Pope. It did not include security. Neither side is perfect.
February 17th, 2011 at 3:58 am
david
You are as insomniac as me and your are reduced to harping on about the pope’s visit – the pope goes back to the vatican – the windsors continue to create more windsors at the UK tax payers expense
February 17th, 2011 at 7:19 am
David Cunard,
I wasn’t making a Cameron v. Brown point. Or even a Pope versus Wills and Kate point. The point is – Canadians were allowed to debate such huge security costs and we aren’t.
February 17th, 2011 at 7:32 am
Tim Sharp
“You are as insomniac as me.
Not at all; we are in quite different time zones.
“your are reduced to harping on about the pope’s visit”
Mentioning its cost twice is hardly “harping on”. Did you complain about the expense? If not, then it seems rather hypocritical to dismiss it out-of-hand.
February 19th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
There is an overriding issue of fairness and justice at stake regarding the monarchy. All those who benefit from the monarchy have done so mostly unjustly historically and even now in the present day. Class and racism as issues in Britain have been stoked up by the idea that someone or some group are somehow inherently better, superior or have more worth than everyone else. It is this issue that feeds most prejudice in Britain; the idea of someone being more ‘valuable’ and ‘important’ than someone else, that intrinsically a person is just better for no good reason, other than usually weak or pathetic ones; i.e. being descended from some long-dead aristocratic that nobody cares about or even remembers.
You don’t need to have a degree to understand that such notions do create unfair and unjust divisions, as they have done in Britain for centuries. The idea of English superiority helped create racist ideas throughout the time of the British Empire at its height, and helped shape ideas and notions of Class, and notions of ‘inferior’ and ‘superior’ and so on. The monarchy is the lynch-pin of the Class system and in fact is the glue that holds it all together. This has created pompousness, snobbery and elitism that has only ever really served elites in Britain.
Do we want a nation that as far as possible operates for all citizens, or a nation of bumlickers, sycophants and toadies going on about how wonderful someone is simply because their ancestors were landgrabbers, or slavetraders or feudal barons? I know which side of the fence I’m on.
February 21st, 2011 at 9:03 pm
The issue of racism has been part of British life for a lot longer than just modern times.Lets not forget that lovely verse in the national dirge(sorry anthem)which dishonours Scottish people so appallingly.How often has Britain been referred to as England with only English people being regarded as having any value other than cannon fodder or slave labour.However, as a Lancastrian,I am fully aware that these snooty attitudes are also directed to anyone from outside the home counties aristocratic establishment and will continue to do so while the head of this elitist system remains.
February 22nd, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Yes there seems to be all kinds of prejudice in England and I agree much of the racism in England was pointed at Welsh, Irish and Scottish people and was used to dominate these countries politically, socially and militarily.
Ideas of Class and Racism actually morph (if that’s the word?!) into each other with, say as an example, Irish people being seen as low in Race and Class terms. Some of the scientific racism of the 19th century about Irish people (and Black people and many other ethnicities) is so bad that it is almost Hitlerian in outlook. You can check some of this out on the ‘Net.
In fact, ideas of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ races particularly helped shape early 20th century racism in the form of Eugenics in the U.S. and Nazism in Germany.
What has this to do with monarchy I hear you say? Well, as I’ve written before today, the notion of monarchy especially in Britain was that British upper class people were the exemplars, i.e. the highest example of humanity in both Class and Racial terms, and they were seen as the zenith in the Great Chain of Being, with everyone else falling somewhere below these exalted beings. It is all small-minded prejudice, but in the 19th century it was accepted by many even leading scientific figureds of the time, right through the 19th century and even into the 20th century. These ideas, however watered-down, are still part and parcel of the racism and class system in Britain. And the monarchy is the lynchpin of it all, whether you like or not.
February 22nd, 2011 at 11:16 pm
It isnt just the wickedness and iniquity of it all that gets my back up,its also the sheer wastefullness.On the one hand we have the aristocratic classes taking for granted the educational advantages that are dropped into their laps from birth and doing nothing remotely useful with their pampered lives,and then we have the children of us mere mortals who,no matter how clever they are or how hard they work,can only get so far because of class barriers.I am often reminded of a phrase my parents used to illustrate the situation,”theres many a brain surgeon walking a factory floor”.And we wonder why a nation of over 70 million people has to import so much talent due to skill shortages.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Yes, the class system is iniquitous and evil and divisive, and in my humble opinion produces animosities and divisions where no such things need be. But, alas, this is present day Britain.
Probably every person who is Working Class and even perhaps some Middle Class people have fallen foul of these often unspoken rules about how far a person can get on in British society. And, to be honest, who really challenges this injustice, I mean who really challenges this unfair system? I think most ordinary people are so cowed into submission that we just accept it without even thinking about it. It goes beyond monarchy, it is something that is so ingrained in British, and cetainly English, society that its in the air we breathe and part of our diet, if you will.
I think there is change coming, and in Britain it will probably be non-violent but change all the same. There are too many people feeling left out of the prosperity while handfuls of people have their noses firmly in the trough and often have more money than they can spend in a thousand lifetimes. This produces one question in me: what is the point of a society if its sole aim is to allow small elites to have most of the wealth while others in that same society are struggling just to get by each day? What is the point of that? So, if more of us ask that question, we might begin to find answers.
It is a history of injustice, and it needs to be challenged, and Class as an issue needs to be put on the same footing as racism and other prejudices. At this time, Class is seen as a non-issue, but for millions of Working Class people, it is the issue at the very heart of a divided Britain. If you can despise someone because of their ‘lowly’ Class origins, you are probably half-way to being a racist too. It is all linked after all, and prejudice is prejudice whatever form it may take.
As a Working Class person, I would like to see change in this society and of course having a republic which is about all the people being sovereign, as opposed to one person or family or elite, is the beginning of more justice and fairness. And, after all, all most of are simply crying out for a little fairness and justice.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:15 pm
@T.Hughes
I agree with you T Hughes. There is a considerable gulf between those with more money than they need and those with so little that their lives are fragmenting into charity-seeking disempowerment. In my view, much is based upon worshipping a system which creates incremental wealth at great social cost. So installed within the collective psyche is this system – it is reinforced daily through visual spectacle, peer pressure and the cynical exploitation of appearance and sexual performance – to approach social cohesion and wellbeing in any other way is unthinkable. In short, life is measured only in these terms.
I think that ‘class’ is a highly unstable term and cannot be used to define workers. Workers work at all levels; many work hard at creating immense wealth for themselves to the absolute exclusion of others. Low-paid workers do not work any harder than middle or highly paid workers. The ‘middle-classes’ exist in their own heads, through conforming to a range of sterotypes.
The notions of class however are very real and this distinction is embodied within the monarchy. They are an entity described variously in terms including ‘exemplary’, ‘bastions of stability’, ‘the essence of what is British’, ‘reliable’, ‘tireless’ et al. None of these categories apply in real terms.
The Windsors exemplfy all that needs changing in this country. They are the apogee of a subtle and oppressive, top-down class-system currently installed as the status quo in the minds of the unenquiring. It keeps people in their place, demands respect for itself, promotes, polices and applauds itself and ignores diversity.
To ‘not enquire’ is why they remain, underpinned by a ruthless mechanism that sells fluffy oblivion. This is beginning to fragment however, signalled by desperate measures including exemptions from the FOI Act and furious activity by those that serve them (and themselves) to maintain the no-longer-acceptable, dressed up as tradition.
Kicking these people out is part of a strategy which enables a fairer, transparent parliamentary system in which the people are ALL represented, regardless of race or creed; one in which tolerance and mutual need is not recognised by social status or the desire to remain wealthy and aloof.
Personally, I would like to see a society in which the needs of its citizens are NOT defined or ignored by the inexorable onslaught of bankers, very rich shareholders, weapon producers and interested worthies and a host of other useless aspirants who live in another realm of existence situated just below the Windsors’ knees.
February 24th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I read your column with interest, and I always think that however well-informed and passionate anyone may be on a particular issue, another point of view is equally important. Thankyou!
Yes, worshipping a system that is really making a god of capitalism, and unfortunately capitalism without any brakes on it, like in Britain and the US. So, we have millionaires and billionaires at one end, and people living in real poverty at the other, in a society which at the same time promoting these very values, also has a thin veneer of ‘democracy’ ‘egalitarianism’ ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’, and so on. Incidentally, what we are seeing all over the Arab world, the remarkable transformations taking place, may very well have ramifications for the rest of the world and certainly Europe at any rate. However, that’s another issue.
Yes, I agree, the idea of ‘class’ is far more complex than just working, middle and upper. There are wheels within wheels in all systems, and as someone who has studied the Working Class, I can say quite easily that this class is as fragmented as any other system, and in this day it is far harder to define than it would of been say a hundred years ago.
“The notions of class however are very real and this distinction is embodied within the monarchy.” Yes, the embodiment of class and, with it, hierarchy is shaped in the form of the monarchy, quite simply. The Queen is the best and poshest and the first, then just under her, the aristocracy, and then just under them the upper-middle classes, then the middle classes, and then the working class at the bottom. How cosy everything is in this little mindset if you are at the top, or even happily placed somewhere in the middle! And, it is pompous, and it is small-minded, and it is bigoted, BUT, this is how millions of people think in this fair country.
Yes, the monarchy represents unfairness and injustice, division and class-hatred, amongst many other things, which is enshrined and institutionalised. And, of course, this is all justified as ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’ and ‘fair’ by seemingly huge numbers of sycophants who seem to think that being royal or aristocratic is still somehow important, when to be honest it really isn’t anymore, it is irrelevant in fact. But, when the only thing you have going for you is being descended from some lord or earl or duke, regardless of lack of talent or intelligence or whatever, then perhaps that is what some people cling to. All told, this is no way to run a modern democracy, and I believe it is all about to hit the buffers. When we, as citizens, decide en masse like in Egypt, that we won’t put up with it anymore, then things will change.