16 Mar 2011
Today I have written to Kate Middleton and prince William calling on them to remove the King of Bahrain and other “vile men” from their wedding invitation list. The letter follows news that the King, who has reportedly received a personal invitation to the wedding from the Queen, has violently crushed the pro-democracy movement.
In the letter remind the couple of this country’s duty to support the oppressed and the democrats over the despots and oppressors. I warned that it would send an “appalling message to the world were any dictators of the Middle East – royal or otherwise – seen enjoying the hospitality of your family and rubbing shoulders with Hollywood stars and politicians at your wedding.”
Here’s the text of the letter:
Dear Kate and William
I am sure you were as appalled and disgusted as I was at the news that the King of Bahrain has crushed a peaceful pro-democracy rally with tanks and live ammunition, killing a number of protesters. So I have no doubt that you must have serious misgivings about the inclusion of the King on the invitation list for your wedding on April 29th.
You will be aware that there are millions of people around the world who suffer oppression and tyranny on a daily basis. Many of these people look to countries such as Britain for inspiration and support in their struggle for freedom and democracy. As such surely we have a duty to support the oppressed and the democrats over the despots and oppressors. Clearly then it would send an appalling message to the world were any dictators of the Middle East – royal or otherwise – seen enjoying the hospitality of your family and rubbing shoulders with Hollywood stars and politicians at your wedding.
I cannot imagine it would reflect well on you, your family or the monarchy were those vile men to remain on your guest list. More importantly it would seriously damage the reputation and image of Britain and would do harm to the wider cause of democracy and freedom. I am therefore asking you to ensure that the invitation to the King of Bahrain and to any other Middle Eastern despot be withdrawn immediately.
While I oppose your right to inherit public office in this country and will do all I can to ensure the Queen’s successor is elected, I wish you both well in married life and trust you will make the right decision on this occasion.
Tweet this post
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, March 16th, 2011 at 2:58 pm and is filed under The House of Windsor, William.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are now closed.
Facebook
March 16th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
A superb missive with a well made point. The royals MUST surely be reconsidering the attendance of the King of Bahrain. Forget about whether you are a monarchist or a republican this is a moral issue. You cannot have a man who is responsible for the deaths of his fellow citizens poncing around with world leaders at a shindig that is being held in our country at our expense. His being there legitimises his position. This will put the PM and other western leaders who attend in a very awkward position. On the one hand they are condeming Gaddafi (rightly so) in the strongest possible terms for his diplorable acts against his people then on the other hand these same leaders will be in the same room and possibly shaking hands with a guy who is doing exactly the same thing. No, this invitation must be withdrawn and the royals should be blunt and honest as to the reasons why.
March 16th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Paulyb
Blunt and honest? the monarchy? I think we can rely on unelected Phillip Windsor or whatever he calls himself to be blunt – but honesty from the monarchy? That would be breaking new ground
March 16th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
What they should do never usually bears any relation to what they do, or they would all right now be petitioning Parliament for their peaceful disentanglement from any function with government, in public property and from access to public money asap, so I don’t hold out much hope. Their eyes are blind to the deaths of Bahrain and Saudi pro-democracy demonstrators, but they jump on the terrible events in Japan and Wootton Bassett’s sad position to come over all ‘royal’. Bleuch.
March 16th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Bleuch indeed.
I’ve some misgivings about this GS article. Is it republic’s job to give prince William and the virgin sacrifice free & probably astute PR advice? Surely we should be encouraging them to invite as many despots as possible so the press can picture the Windsors all buddy-roos with ‘em and crucify ‘em for it. Give ‘em enough rope….
‘…You will be aware that there are millions of people around the world who suffer oppression and tyranny on a daily basis. Many of these people look to countries such as Britain for inspiration and support in their struggle for freedom and democracy…’
Really? This country with 19th century plumbing and an 18th century class system? Iraq has put paid to the UK’s chances of being seen as anybody’s moral exemplar for a generation. That the UK is some beacon of civil rights for the huddled masses yearning to breathe is certainly news to me. I know the World Service is well thought of, but let’s not get carried away.
March 16th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
This will flush them out into the open. If the invitation stands then we know, if we didn’t know already, where the Windsor’s sympathies lie. It raises some issues for the UK government which they cannot duck. David Cameron has been supporting a no fly zone to stop Gadafi continuing to massacre his citizens. What about this man? Or is Mr Cameron yet again doing no more than grandstanding? Will he be too lacking in backbone to upset “The Palace”?
I wonder if, from the government, we hear that “The invitation is a private matter.” If so, then he leaves the Windsors to hang twisting in the wind.
Who else amongst the great and the good will raise the issue? Which politicians: Tory, Con Dem or Labour; which church leaders: C. of E. and Roman Catholics; there are 26 unelected bishops in the Lords and this will indicate if they have any moral courage to speak up; which media commentators? Will any of the Windsors speak up?
The response will say much about the politicians and influence pedlars of this country.
March 16th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Brilliant stroke!
This letter is in order. It hit all the points.
Lard: It is not the role of Republic to give advise to the monarchy. This letter isn’t doing that.
I like it a lot.
March 16th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
I’m with The Lard on this one. There will be nothing more inelegant than seeing the Windsors rubbing shoulders with these odious people. Hopefully those here with a keen sense of morality will not be able to tell them apart from our own illegitimate superbeings and will reject them all. Pointing out ugly despots may well be the imperative of some gleeful sections of the media. I hope that Robert Mugabe has been invited and that the Windsors will emphasise their Christianity by extending the hospitality to Pastor Terry Jones… Oh no. Of course he is far too ghastly having already been banned for being borderline crazy…
March 16th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Phaedra: Definitely Robert Mugabe. But even better what about Idi Ahmin who styles himself King of Scotland: real royalty there. Or at least as real as royalty ever is.
March 16th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
You all disgust me…there will never be a republic in this country, go to America, we don’t need king haters
March 16th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
It is you who disgust us with your subject-mentality and fawning deference to someone who was never elected. This is why a monarchy divides a country, whereas a republic would unite the people, as there wouldn’t be any one single person to bow and scrape to. The country itself should be the symbol to rally round, not an idividual.
Notice how Simon there didn’t offer any defence for the Royal’s invitation to despots to attend the wedding?
March 16th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Simon? Are you seriously suggesting that you love kings? Have you even read the main article on this page? The king of Bahrain murdered his own people in cold blood, and for what? Peacefully protesting for democracy.
March 16th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
To: Phaedra
I almost always agree with you, and 100% enjoy your writing, style, grammar, reasoning, wit, humor…
On this one, Graham was able to set it up to where if the monarchy removes their Bahrain counterpart, Republic can duly take credit, while continuing to mount pressure on the other issues, and if the palace rebuffs the ‘advise’, then your ( and Lard’s) wish for Windsor’s to party with Bahrain butchers will come to fruition. In any case Republic wins.
When Graham stated “I cannot imagine it would reflect well on you, your family or the monarchy were those vile men to remain on your guest list. More importantly it would seriously damage the reputation and image of Britain and would do harm to the wider cause of democracy and freedom. I am therefore asking you to ensure that the invitation to the King of Bahrain and to any other Middle Eastern despot be withdrawn immediately”, it rightly presents Republic to appear to put concern for Britain and her image above politics and point scoring. Awesome.
Republic’s brilliant stroke concludes with the following: “While I oppose your right to inherit public office in this country and will do all I can to ensure the Queen’s successor is elected, I wish you both well in married life and trust you will make the right decision on this occasion”. This also, in advance, puts to rest the idea that republic are party poopers. How can you top that? Republic 2 monarchy nil!
March 16th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
With nothing better to do I thought I would see what Republic had to say, if anything, about the Monarchy in Japan and its reaction to the dreadful crisis in that country. Not a word about the Emperor or his address to the people of Japan. However, this newest topic caught my eye. I don’t know where Mr Smith gets his information, but there has not been any official list of the guests to William and Catherine’s wedding ceremony, so his disgust is built entirely on a report by the Daily Mail that the King of Bahrain might have been invited. Had this missive been based upon unassailable fact, there would have been some point in it but, considering that neither Mr Smith nor the media have empirical knowledge of the guest list, it seems to me that it is quite out-of-place in any quest for adopting a new Constitution and concomitant head-of-state. The advisors to the young couple are not completely stupid and are highly unlikely to have invited anyone who is associated with the atrocities in those nations where there is no democratic process.
Broga
“But even better what about Idi Ahmin ”
Now that would be a very remarkable appearance considering that he died in 2003.
March 16th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
“You all disgust me…there will never be a republic in this country, go to America, we don’t need king haters [sic].” Simon
Sorry Simon ‘we’? Who do you claim to be speaking for now – yourself as usual? Do other people, with whom you disagree over numerous other issues, ‘disgust’ you? Do you normally insult them? Why America?
March 16th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
“The advisors to the young couple are not completely stupid and are highly unlikely to have invited anyone who is associated with the atrocities in those nations where there is no democratic process.” D Cunard
Please don’t apologise. You speak with some knowledge do you? Has the guest list been rapidly revised perhaps? Could it be that you have been elected to comment, as some sort of prolepsis – since you claim rarely to be outclassed? Do tell.
March 16th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
@David Cunard: OK, fair cop. You got me. Well done.
March 16th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
@Simon: Have you ever considered getting off your knees and being a man? You might enjoy the experience. Your present obeisance is embarassing to read and it is painful to contemplate what goes on in your head.
March 16th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
I have to ask one question: what is the difference between an absolute monarch such as the Bahraini ‘king’ (or for that matter the ‘king’ of Saudi Arabia or North Korea) and an hereditary dictator?
None whatever that I can see, but perhaps Simon the Sycophant or David Cunard can enlightem me.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
“The advisors to the young couple are not completely stupid and are highly unlikely to have invited anyone who is associated with the atrocities in those nations where there is no democratic process.” David Cunard
Well we shall see will we not? As advice goes, Graham’s letter is right up there with anything the not completely stupid official advisors should have come up with regarding foreign royal cabal members being welcomed to this country. Given prince Andrew’s penchant for bad associations, the not completely stupid official advisors appear to be not as ‘not completely stupid’ as they should be.
“You all disgust me…there will never be a republic in this country, go to America, we don’t need king haters” Simon
I wonder if this Simon is our resident fascist troll by the same name, or whether there are two of the blighters. Either way Simon the feeling is entirely mutual.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
@e-club
‘….Lard: It is not the role of Republic to give advise to the monarchy. This letter isn’t doing that…..’
Perhaps not, but I don’t want a hip liberal ameliorated monarchy, I want no monarchy at all, if I can want a negative. ‘No kings, and we shall have our quartern loaf’, as my old mate Thomas Spence used to say.
Of the two scenarios you outline, eclub1, the Windsors grooving with dictators –and being pictured doing so-is far more useful to the cause. The King of Bahrain not coming is no use.
Simon’s language seems to have taken a very 1790s Church & King turn- when was the last time someone used the term ‘king haters’? I quite like it too. There should be more 1790s lingo on this site.
@David
‘Not a word about the Emperor or his address to the people of Japan’.
Funny you say that, because I was just about to mention it. That’s just what you need in the midst of simultaneous nuclear calamity / earthquake / economic meltdown / disintegration / social breakdown isn’t it? A pampered aloof old fart sat in a luxury bunker reading very poorly from a piece of paper in a flat passionless tone, with only a sporadic glance to camera. Yeah, that’ll sort it.
‘The advisors to the young couple are not completely stupid and are highly unlikely to have invited anyone who is associated with the atrocities in those nations where there is no democratic process….’
Yeah, those smart clued-up advisors soon saw off all the gun runners & money launderers & paedophiles from getting anywhere near our Andy.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
The disgusting thing is the actions of an unelected, dictatorial monarch being willing to murder his own people because they dare to question his validity and demand democracy in their lives. What further disgusts me is that our own unelected and undemocratic head of state is either unable or unwilling to come out and soundly condemn the actions of someone who is willing to be so brutal towards their own people. In a way it would be better to allow any despotic thug who is invited to ‘the wedding’ to attend and then draw attention to their presence and their attitudes towards their own people. This would show very clearly just what sort of low life our unelected head of state and miriad hangers on like to keep company with. I would rather be a king hater than to despise the people who truly make a country what it is.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
kev Latham
I believe that a culprit can commit or assist a murder anywhere on the planet and still be tried under English law. Perhaps a prosecution of the king of bahrein for being an accessory to murder might be appropriate.
simon
when we democratically establish a republic you will be free to leave to the kingdom of your choice (if there are any left) or stay here with your deluded cronies and campagn for a return of the monarchy, why should anyone leave just because they disagree with your fascist views?
March 16th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
jon brown,
sadly I think you’re wrong. The only crime that I know of that is generally abke to be tried in ither countries is child sex abuse. There was a suggestion that the Pope should have been charged with aiding and abetting this during his recent visit, but it can to nothing. But ordinary murder, no. He would have to be arrested, deported, and tried in his own country with predictable results. Sadly International Law is still very weak, though it is getting a little stronger year by year.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
I think it’s fine to issue advice like this… because it’s a way of putting them on notice…
I think republicanism can’t lose by letters of this kind… if royals bow to popular pressure – they acknowledge the pre-eminence of public opinion – which creates a valuable destabilising precedent. If they go ahead with the invite, then their indifference to public opinion has an even more destabilising effect.
The King of Bahrain is a reminder of the global context of monarchy – people think of “harmless” royals like Queen Beatrice and Ashley Giles – not the despots of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Phaedra
“Has the guest list been rapidly revised perhaps?”
I wouldn’t know – and neither does anyone else. Since you appear to have missed my point, I shall repeat it: Mr Smith’s letter is based on what was reported by a popular newspaper as a possibility rather than as a fact. No-one knows, least of all Graham Smith, whether the King of Bahrain was invited in the first place.
The lard ascending
“A pampered aloof old fart sat in a luxury bunker reading very poorly from a piece of paper in a flat passionless tone, with only a sporadic glance to camera. Yeah, that’ll sort it.”
Apparently the Japanese people do not agree with you. Are you aware of any republican sentiment in Japan?
March 16th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
As a matter of fact David, yes.
“Aki no Arashi (Autumn Storm) was a Japanese organization advocating the abolition of the Imperial system. The group was started in 1987 by a radical group of students at Waseda University in Tokyo and street punk rockers. They often used street performances to spread their message. In 1996 members of Aki no Arashi won a lawsuit against the Tokyo Metropolitan Government for unlawful arrests and battery by Tokyo police. The origin was a rallies organized by the group in 1989, after the death of Emperor Showa.”
“Han Tennosei Undo Renraku Kai (roughly Anti-Emperor Activities Network or liaison group movement against the Imperial system) shortened to Hantenren is a Japanese left wing group opposed to the Emperor of Japan. They participates in protests at the controversial Yasukuni Shrine.”
You might also want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Motoshima
March 16th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Japan may be a very modern country in men ways but it is still very much ion the feudal mindset. There is still a very strong sense of respect for elders and superiors there. A pity we don’t still have some of that respect here for those who deserve it through merit. This does not make it right that in this country we have an unelected and undemocratic head of state. I have family Japan, fortunately untouched by the tragedy unfolding at the moment, so far and we keep our fingers crossed. I can assure anyone that Japan has a thriving Republican movement. The emperor is a typical example of a foaling monarchy. While everyone else flogs their guts out to help people in a material and physical manner the talking head goes on TV and say he’s praying for the country. A bit like our unelected head of state sending a message of condolence to a disaster stricken area. Useless!
March 16th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
@David
Oh damn, Jeremy’s beaten me to it. I like this though-
http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/director-arrested-for-putting-up-poster-of-anti-emperor-film
Bertrand de Jouvenel has it right when he says ‘Majority opinion derives its authority not from majorities alone, but from majorities formed in a climate of liberty of opinion….’
stick that in your pipe and smoke it-
March 16th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Cunard is back. Nitpicking at its finest! And I’m sure that he’s still not able to come up with a single credible reason for supporting monarchy! Wasting his and everyone else’s time here yet again!
As for Japan – Jeremy, Kev and Lard have made very good points.
We must also look at the fact that despite the comments made by the Emperor, it seems many Japanese citizens are distrustful of the official comments regarding nuclear safety. Even as far away as Tokyo!
The emperors words have done little to allay public fears and concerns!
March 16th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Until we get rid of the incumbents I think there should be a ‘no royal visit in the event of disaster’ card that people can carry around like a donor card. Can you imagine being stuck in a hospital bed covered in plaster and somebody trundles in Charles or Andrew or any of them to woffle something at you? Cue relapse! It’s a pretty bloody thing for them to be expected to do as well, really dreadful all round.
I find it very strange that David Cunard asks if we know of any republican sentiment in Japan. Does he really think that this one nation, alone among the human race, would not have the independence of mind, intelligence and political nouse to think for themselves but be happy only in servile worship? That’s pretty appalling that you could imagine that because it would be incredible.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Never underestimate the monarchy’s ability to support fellow monarchies no matter how unpopular they are. Recall how in 1814, after the military defeat of Napoleon, they insisted on foisting upon the French the same Bourbon ancien regime from whom the people had fought and suffered for 25 years to rid themselves. Now clearly the British establishment was determined to remove Napoleon, but did they think they could simply turn the clock back to 1788, as if the revoloution had just never occurred? The French were war-weary but when Napoleon presented himself they were happy to support him in order to be rid of Louis 18.
History advises that we can never overestimate the stupidity and ruthlessness of royalty.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
In fact I hope the kings of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Oman, etc, and all Andy’s friends from Azerbaijan and other nice friendly places, including that convicted American paedophile turn up for the wedding. It might finally make the British public realise that the Windsors are totally bereft of morals.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
@Marjory Smith
Very rare that I laugh out loud at anything on this site, but your post did it. I suppose you could try to projectile vomit on to one of them. Would be quite good too to go to a royal wedding street party and vomit on the merrymakers or the cakes or fake a showy nervous breakdown to darken the mood.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
The British Government could act.
They could refuse entry to the country to said despot but that would only embarass the royals.
Instead, I expect that the Downing Street Press Office – last seen on royal duties following the death of Diana – will appear in a timely manner over the horizon, riding a white charger and carrying the flag of the 7th Cavalry, to save the monarchy yet again with some welcome advice.
March 17th, 2011 at 12:06 am
imatt
“Nitpicking at its finest!”
So the truth is nitpicking? There is no credible proof that the King of Bahrain was ever invited to the forthcoming nuptials. Building an argument on such flimsy evidence is self-destructive, creating a house of cards which inevitably will fall.
“And I’m sure that he’s still not able to come up with a single credible reason for supporting monarchy!”
Whoever said I “support” the monarchy doesn’t take time to read or digest my comments. What I have said is that I see no reason to change the system until a better one has been presented. As the saying goes, ‘build a better mousetrap and people will buy it’. So far I have not seen a better one than what is in place. The onus is on pro-republicans to convince others that they have an improved model.
“Wasting his and everyone else’s time here yet again!”
If my comment about truthfulness is a waste of time for you, then why bother to make a response? I must have hit a raw nerve. Graham Smith’s letter would have been acceptable if he had bothered to insert something along the lines of “if there is any truth to the reported invitation”, but no, he states it as fact when he cannot possibly know. If that’s nit-picky, so be it, but it seems to me that accuracy rather than supposition is to be greatly preferred.
March 17th, 2011 at 12:33 am
“I must have hit a raw nerve.”
You wish!
Was it not yourself who said you don’t have to give a reason for supporting monarchy?
The point is that if you’re not going to give a credible argument one way or another, then your wasting your own time more than annyone elses! you appear to post here out of sheer boredom!
March 17th, 2011 at 1:08 am
@ Simon
“You all disgust me…there will never be a republic in this country, go to America, we don’t need king haters”
Simon, have you read the letter? Are you actually aware of the siutation in Bahrain? The reason Graham Smith has written the letter is not to merely slag off a king for the sake of it. This king is responsible for having people KILLED ! Five more died in the latest peaceful demonstartion for democracy. Ask yourself this, would you really like to see your beloved royals cavorting around with such a man in a public event?
@ Mr Cunard
So are you niether republican or monarchist? Are you simply apathetic and just killing time? I cannot take you seriously if you are just sitting on the fence waiting for something better to turn up.
March 17th, 2011 at 1:19 am
Richard Vernon
according to my learned friend here murder committed anywhere on the planet can be tried in England or Scotland
March 17th, 2011 at 6:25 am
iMatt
“Was it not yourself who said you don’t have to give a reason for supporting monarchy?”
I think not – I’ve always said that I’m happy with the existing system (as it appears that most people are) and that it is for those advocating a republic to present an argument which soundly demonstrates that a change in the constitution would be for the better. If you wish to interpret that as a “supporter” of the British monarchy, that’s your choice, but not my position.
Paulyb
“I cannot take you seriously if you are just sitting on the fence waiting for something better to turn up.”
Indeed, I am waiting for something better to turn up: thus far no-one has convinced me that the better mousetrap is ready for sale. It is not apathy but satisfaction with what we have. Is that so wrong? However, my point in commenting on this particular topic was because of the supposition mr Smith makes. No-one, but no-one in the media knows the guest list; to build an argument on such a fragile basis seems pointless to me. I might as well say that I’ve heard that Republic as a group is about to dissolve, it would have the same validity.
March 17th, 2011 at 7:27 am
Perhaps it would be useful to broaden the discussion a little. Royal wedding invitation protocols apparently exclude elected head of states at the expense of those who inherited their job from ma and pa. The King of Bahrain therefore has a prima facie right to attend which the Barack Obama does not have. April 29th will therefore represent a very dense concentration of people whose only qualification is parentage.
When I was last in the states, tabloids were screaming that Barack Obama had been dis-invited because Michelle Obama had committed some minor breach or protocol in the Queen’s presence – sending her grandson into apoplexy. Probably the story is untrue or distorted – but it’s evidence of the kind of reputation this wedding is giving us all.
In any case, we are spending vast sums in public money on security costs for an event that celebrates inherited privilege to the deliberate exclusion of elected office. It’s a very expensive way of vandalising our own international reputation.
Marjory – like the card idea. Used to have one in the 1980s… “do not wish to be visited by Margaret Thatcher”…
March 17th, 2011 at 9:08 am
“Since you appear to have missed my point…” David Cunard
Hardly. Your point is to suggest that despite sundry global reports regarding the 40 or so ‘royal’ invitations, all press information is likely to be either completely wrong or deliberately constructed; to invite despotic rulers would not be appropriate, so this must be the case. You feel Mr Smith who has taken the initiative and has written explaining the views of Republic, in light of these numerous reports, is doing so with no confirmed list.
Since you appear to speak with such conviction I suggested that with your much-vaunted social connectedness perhaps you might be the angelos, bringing news of an urgent revision. It was of course tongue-in-cheek. You cannot know all of Mr Smith’s sources of course.
March 17th, 2011 at 9:24 am
‘if you don’t like it go to America’ @Simon
This kind of response is pathetically childish. Students and others are not happy with cuts to education funding, what do you suggest a mass exodus to Scotland where uni is free?
Are you really suggesting that every discontent in this country should emigrate?
Re Japan
According to our Meejah, the TV appearance of said old fart, actually made people MORE afraid as the old fart’s TV appearances are so rare they figured things must be worse than they had been told.
March 17th, 2011 at 9:30 am
“Those who are content with the present arrangement are under no obligation to argue why. Is that so hard to understand?”
THIS was written by Cunard himself! So if you’re happy with the present arrangement of MONARCHY, that makes you errr…a MONARCHIST!
Cunard is trying to fool people here. He is trying to make it look like he is open to new ideas and dialogue when in reality nothing said by anyone on this site will actually ever change him from being a monarchist.
So republicans have to do all the work “convincing” Cunard otherwise whilst minding their P & Q’s and of course never mentioning the royals by name!
However, he knows as well as anyone else that he’ll not be changing his mind at any time. So he’ll continue to nitpick and pour over other peoples comments without ever coming up with a credible argument of his own! And by doing so he tries to take a thread in his particular direction, often an endless loop of repetition!
March 17th, 2011 at 9:52 am
@David
When you were working for gay rights in the pre-Stonewall days, did you ever encounter somebody who repeatedly argued we shouldn’t interfere with the status quo, they were happy with the existing system, gay people being verbally and physically abused was just the way things are, they were unconvinced you had a better mousetrap, and argued this to the point of obsession? er…. and as an addendum, did you (quite rightly) want to punch them in the face?
Also, see the ‘better mousetrap fallacy’.. Emerson had it all wrong about mousetraps apparently. Though how this relates to the monarchy I’m not sure.
March 17th, 2011 at 10:12 am
“…he [Cunard] knows as well as anyone else that he’ll not be changing his mind at any time. So he’ll continue to nitpick and pour over other peoples comments without ever coming up with a credible argument…by doing so he tries to take a thread in his particular direction…” iMatt
Yes, I concluded this following the last round of tedious cunardery. Our task is reduced to convincing him, in order that he can remain permanently unconvinced. His may well be a table-turning exercise in which he seeks to counter republican claims that monarchists consistently fail to come up with a credible reason for retaining the patriarchal, divisive, unethical system they all applaud. He asserts that ‘most people’ support the monarchy and ignores Mori and ICM polls which show that between 24% and 30% have said they do not. He also ignores the fact that Republic is a campaign group and seeks to persuade through factual argument, not needing approval to exist in a loosely democratic society.
As I said before, he claims neither to be a monarchist nor to find republicanism credible. Who cares? He couches his posts in throw-away apologies for being here and for some reason, best known to himself, spends his energies on finding fault with the campaign, whilst remaining ‘non-aligned’. It may be to do with retaining a sense of delicious shame. Who knows?
March 17th, 2011 at 10:21 am
To Lard and Phaedra
You are quite right that it would be bad for the monarchy if they are seen rubbing shoulders with despots: that’s the point of this letter!
Rather than giving them advice we are telling the world what we think about their choice of guests and how that reflects on them. Clearly Kate and William (and their PR people) are unlikely to read my letter or take any notice of it.
March 17th, 2011 at 11:33 am
The fallacy underlying David Cunard’s arguement lies in his phrase “..I see no reason to change the system until a better one has been presented.”. This utilitarian-only arguement attempts to evade the overriding moral imperative that unelected power is a breach of human rights because government without the consent of the governed is simply coercion. Monarchy (in this day & age) is wrong and to move the arguement from this by focussing only on its functionality is tantamount to conceding this. No wrongful enterprise can be justified simply on the grounds that it works. The slave trade worked, child labour worked, Stalin’s purge’s worked, imperialism worked, extermination of indigenous peoples in the new world worked etc etc but they were all wrong. Like these endeavours, monarchy falls at the first hurdle-its wrong and we shouldn’t be doing it at all, and before anyone suggests that the moral hurdle is not the first hurdle they should explain why it is that before the enlightenment the arguements justifying monarchy were always entirely moral in content:ie it’s what God wants therefore it has to be right. Functionalty was never mentioned-largely because everyone knew it was dysfunctional. Monarchy thrived while people thought it was right and now that we realise it is wrong it must perish.
It is an important recent change in the content of right-wing arguement that moral imperative can now be dropped completely if it thwarts some elitist end. This is like insisting on playing a game of football without a ball when having the ball allows us to lose. Human rights are upheld only when they support some reactionary case-eg the “right to choose” to accept scientific truth in matters like evolution or climate change.
As to the functionality of the current arrangement my view is that if Elizabeth W stood as President I might well vote for her. However as for future royal generations I suspect the reactionaries are not going to be impressed with the damaged goods waiting in store. E2 is the most “normal” specimen the royal family has produced for centuries. But don’t get used to her. Charles is a much more typical chip of this family block.
March 17th, 2011 at 11:42 am
How many of you I wonder are convinced that we can reach the promised land and get rid of the royals through the parliamentary system? For what its worth there is a tradition in this country of political change through the ballot box and parliamentary action.Apologists will argue that votes for women, the abolition of slavery, the minimum wage, the welfare state, the end of child labour to name a few issues were all achieved in this way. But what about republicanism? Do we have a real prospect of of achieving that goal through mere political persuasion?
I do not believe so.
Constitutional monarchies – how I hate that job description – are anything but responsive to demand for change.In that sense royalists have not moved on from the beliefs they held when we chopped one intransigent monarch’s head off. They still believe in the divine right of kings, its that simple.
But they have been clever : the utterly pervasive nature of monarchy in the state apparatus suggests that only drastic surgery will eliminate the infection that has spread through every layer of government to a point where it has become tyrannical. There is no real freedom, justice or equality in this country and the absence of such conditions justify political action for the removal of the offending state, apparatus and all.
No, there is absolutely no way that such fundamental change will be achieved through the ballot box as every political party is subservient to the monarch and each is tied to it through their oath of loyalty to the monarch.
Republicans need their own party through which to seek a majority in parliament , failing that only a popular revolution will achieve that end. Because of our long history of subservience to various royal houses many doubt that the British would ever rise up in the numbers required to force the monarch to abdicate.
Which is a pity you would be surprised how much change could be brought about if only the people of this country would have a little faith in themselves and demand what is theirs by right: freedom from oppression, equal access to the law not just equality and a real say in the government of this country.
March 17th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
David says “there is absolutely no way that such fundamental change will be achieved through the ballot box as every political party is subservient to the monarch and each is tied to it through their oath of loyalty to the monarch.”. I agree with his point entirely though I suggest that while every nation has a leadership class (not to be confused with a ruling class), ours is diverted from serving “us” to serving “them” principally by the honours system. This is the most cunning way of harnessing their loyalty to the ruling establishment and away from the nation as a whole. To the rich and successful honours thrill more than does mere money or sex or drugs or rock & roll. Mick Jagger enjoyed a life of all of these and even he was seduced by honours. In mainland Europe having a title is perceived as mildly embarassing. For hundreds of French, Germans, Italians etc it is perceived as tacky to allude to some archaic family nobility. Rightly so-it is. This is part of the reason the English royals now shun their mainland royal cousins to whom they used to be so close:they’ve lost their magical powers. They’ve let the side down.
March 17th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Paul Roberts: I can confirm your comment about mainland Europeans regarding titles as tacky. A German said to me about someone staying in the same hotel, “He is a pathetic figure. Five minutes into any conversion and he will let you know that he has a title which came to him from an Italian ancestor.” The implication being that lacking merit by means of their own worth they try to suggest status by shoving a title at you.
Perhaps the ridicule regarding titles in Europe is the reason for the Windsor’s attachment and burgeoning friendship with Middle East tyrants and dictators.
Didn’t one of the other Rolling Stones regard Mick Jagger’s title as a wretched cop out. Trade Union great Jack Jones refused a title and is revered. Hugh Scanlon accepted one and made himself a figure of ridicule.
March 17th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“Who else amongst the great and the good will raise the issue? Which politicians: Tory, Con Dem or Labour; which church leaders: C. of E. and Roman Catholics; there are 26 unelected bishops in the Lords and this will indicate if they have any moral courage to speak up; which media commentators? Will any of the Windsors speak up?
The response will say much about the politicians and influence pedlars of this country”
Yes, excellent point. In a way, whatever the royals do here, if they have indeed invited the Bahraini king to the wedding, will be to their personal detriment. If they fly in the face of public opinion and the obviously dubious morality, they will lose something, and if they back down it shows that they are not impervious to public opinion. I would like to add something; I think sometimes the problem of waiting for the ‘great and good’ to come out against hypocrisy and dubious morals is part of the problem itself. How different are we from monarchists if we wait merely for the crumbs off some other unelected personage, be he or she a Lord or Bishop? Even if one should be moved to criticise, all the rest will no doubt turn their backs on such dissent. The default position of politicians, whether elected or unelected, seems to be fawning deference, when in a healthy democracy it would hopefully be at least critical and questioning. The tide is turing though, and I think public opinion is getting more critical of unearned privilge, irrespective of what the bastions of power think or don’t think.
“It is you who disgust us with your subject-mentality and fawning deference to someone who was never elected. This is why a monarchy divides a country, whereas a republic would unite the people, as there wouldn’t be any one single person to bow and scrape to. The country itself should be the symbol to rally round, not an idividual.”
Yes, monarchy by its nature is wholly divisive. It in fact thrives on division and the promotion of conspicuous division. Them and us; them knowing their wondrous fantasy land of wealth and privilege and ‘divine’ right, and us knowing our place outside of such things unless we get lucky, and so on. The country and not any single indivdual should be sovereign; it should be about all of us together, not some super-annuated individual dividing all of us into little controllable groups, the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ and so on.
March 17th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Re the Stonewall thing, I can remember about 25 years ago being at a public meeting in Inverness where they were talking about sex education in schools and I said that the existence of lesbian and gay people should be mentioned. I was a completely lone voice. Absolutely everyone there thought it was irrelevant, distracting and diluting from their one focus of contraception and (heterosexually transmitted) VD as the be all and end all, even in the face of almost blanket silence and invisibility as there was then. We’ve come a long way from there, and so will this issue. Don’t look over your shoulder, but the revolution is coming…
March 17th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
A Teacher, The lard ascending
Your extreme youth betrays you; assuming that your health holds up, you will both be “old farts” one day. Dismissing the elderly in such terms indicates to me that you are ageist, not something to be tolerated or of which to be proud.
Phaedra
“He asserts that ‘most people’ support the monarchy and ignores Mori and ICM polls which show that between 24% and 30% have said they do not.”
Which by my calculation means that between 76% and 70% do support the monarchy or, at the very least, have no interest in changing the system. An analogy is chemotherapy for cancer. In certain cases a patient is told that the treatment has a 10-15% rate of success. Which in practical terms means that it has a 90-85% rate of failure.
Marjory Smith
“Re the Stonewall thing . . . but the revolution is coming…”
I remind you that the change in British law concerning homosexual between consenting adults emanated from the House of Lords. American law was on a state-by-state basis and not until 2003 were consensual sexual relations made legal by the United States Supreme Court. Despite Stonewall, the most famous of American protests, there was no “revolution” involved and the changes came by other means. Even now, in a nation as large as the United States, there is no universal acceptance of homosexuality. And as far as I can see, similarly there is little acceptance for a change in the British Constitution. King Farouk was correct.
March 17th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Going off the point here but does anyone know of any alternative celebrations in the midlands area on 29th April.I can’t stomach this nonsense much longer and hope that the 29th will be a nice spring day so I can take the family out to the top of a mountain and get away from this royal drivel.
VIVA LA REPUBLIC.
March 17th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Graham Smith said
“Clearly Kate and William (and their PR people) are unlikely to read my letter or take any notice of it.”
I think you’re wrong there, Graham. I bet your letter will be read with great concern, and I’m sure this website is visited regularly by the spin-doctors. Probably also MI5….
March 17th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
To: David Cunard
About: Paul Roberts post on March 17th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Cunard,
How can you ignore the above post? Roberts laid it down for you there. I am waiting for you to respond to Mr. Roberts’ well reasoned piece. I don’t even know how you can ignore it.
(**On a side note, I am very proud of the intellectual, reasoning acumen displayed by republican posters overnight, especially David (NOT Cunard, the other David), Roberts, Imatt, Phaedra, Cbrunstrom et al… then of course it’s easier when you have such a just cause to work with; I know it’s easy to out-class bankrupt, servile monarchists, but you guys really made me proud to be on your side this morning. Great stuff).
March 17th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
@David
An ‘old fart’ is usually taken to mean an elderly reactionary person, usually a man: to say it applies to all old people is distorting things. It first came to prominence in this country at the emergence of punk; then it was used to denote anyone who was against the emergent new wave scene. You could be an old fart at 25. I was an old fart at 18. To try and pass it off as akin to racial abuse is a bit desperate.
‘…I remind you that the change in British law concerning homosexual (sic) between consenting adults emanated from the House of Lords. ….’
And your point is….?
‘…Which by my calculation means that between 76% and 70% do support the monarchy….’
I thought the figures ran something like 20% opposed and 40% utterly indifferent, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. You could even read it as a majority agin em. Furthermore, a proper informed debate has yet to take place. I suppose Queenie croaking might provoke one. Or Andrew just continuing as normal. Shalom.
March 17th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
jon brown
March 17th, 2011 at 1:19 am
“Richard Vernon
according to my learned friend here murder committed anywhere on the planet can be tried in England or Scotland”
I have to admit that’s news to me. I’m certainly not an expert on the law, but I do follow these things fairly closely.
March 17th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Actually, even if that is correct, it wouldn’t apply anyway, as he could claim diplomatic immunity as Head of State.
March 17th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
I can’t tell you how touched i was to read this article. my people are dying and i thought the entire world gave us the cold shoulder and never cared. they are highly educated , peaceful and demandign their rights. Saudi troops ivaded our country to kill innocent people. my friends who are all drs been sending me SOS messages , they were kept as hostages in the hospital for 3 days and hit physically as a punishment for helping injured protestors. an orhtopedic surgeon ali Alikri was arrested from Operating Theatre. female drs were verbally abused. a pulmonary critical care attending was tryign to help and he was pulled by police from the ambulance an dhit brutally. this is a genocide. please help us. we don’t expect more than sympathy. ppl from bahrain have been posting this article on their FB. they are quite touched and grateful some people actually care
March 17th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Addendum:
I feel extremely happy to be associated with very witty and fair minded people on this blog, in this cause, and I am very proud of many of you. And because I started naming a few above, I decided to name more. Please extend the list for my pride to include: Marjory, Graham, T Hughes, Vernon, Lard, Morgan, Broga, cooper, Jon Brown, Martin G, A Teacher, Latham, Jeremy Cooper, Paulyb, and Bob Wiggin.
March 17th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Bahrini Dr
Thank you for your post, which literally brought tears to my eyes. You certainly have pur sympathy, and I hope that our scumbag prince Andy has not sold too many weapons to your oppressors.
March 17th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
eclub1
“I am waiting for you to respond to Mr. Roberts’ well reasoned piece.”
Well, wait your heart out. I don’t know why you even post here; you’re not British, you’ve never been to Britain, you think Tony Blair is still a Member of Parliament, that the Queen’s name is on every court and other official building and have the effrontery to criticise a system which you have never experienced. Additionally you consider that the United States’ Constitution would be suitable for the United Kingdom when it most certainly would not. Frankly, railings from a foreigner who appears to be ignorant of the merits of British democracy has very little affect on me except to irritate. Read up on King Gama, you have so much in common.
The lard ascending
“I was an old fart at 18.”
Apparently nothing changes despite the passage of a few years.
“To try and pass it off as akin to racial abuse is a bit desperate.”
I wrote nothing about racial abuse, rather that calling the Emperor of Japan (and by extension, other elderly members of society) was ageist. As you may one day discover, it is not the sole prerogative of the young to be concerned for their fellow man.
Ref House of Lords: “And your point is….?”
That there was no revolution, but the changes in the law originated in Parliament and the rule of law. Interestingly, unlike the USA, where the matter had to wend its way through the courts rather than the legislature. Parliament got the message when Congress and State Legislatures did not. Something to be said for the British system.
“I thought the figures ran something like 20% opposed and 40%”
You’ll have to take that up with Phaedra, she supplied the figures I used.
March 17th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
@eclub 1:Having spent much of my life being critised for my opinions, honestly held, it is a rare pleasure to be included in your list and I thank you.
March 17th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
“An analogy is chemotherapy for cancer. In certain cases a patient is told that the treatment has a 10-15% rate of success. Which in practical terms means that it has a 90-85% rate of failure” Cunard.
Unfortunate choice of ‘analogy’ to say the least. The issue was surrounding your attempt to denigrate Republic by asserting that ‘most people’ were monarchists. If up to 30% are not you can hardly claim it. Even if most people were monarchists it would not proscribe some people from having a republican view.
March 17th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
To: Cunard
David Cunard: Well, wait your heart out. I don’t know why you even post here; you’re not British, you’ve never been to Britain, you think Tony Blair is still a Member of Parliament, that the Queen’s name is on every court and other official building and have the effrontery to criticise a system which you have never experienced.
I post here because I want to help bring about a government of the people by the people, for the people, to Britain. I want to help fellow mankind achieve equality everywhere; I want to help ameliorate injustice and treachery as well. I post here because, let me see, how do I put it? Because I CAN! Correct, I am not British. When you allow your Queen to be head of state for other countries such as Canada, Australia, Jamaica, and so many others, you lose the locality of the issue; it becomes a universal free for all to criticize. Therefore, I’m in. If you want the issue of UK monarchy to be a local one, start with the monarchy itself, curtail it’s tentacles.
Show proof where I said Blair is “still” a member of parliament, and I’ll donate $1000 to your favorite charity.
Yes, I do feel the Queens name is in too many places, and unnecessarily so. Do you know why? That is usually the practice of dictators to name public things in their honor while they are still alive. In the UK’s case, even the army, the navy, the post office, in short, everything is named for the monarch or the family. If you don’t find that to be a sort of brain wash, you are the one that needs to get out of Britain once in a while. You need to see the world outside of your little enclave/village, Cunard!
The basis to judge a criticism is if it is justified or not, whether it is constructive or not; it is not necessary to experience it before you criticize it. You can experience it, and get it wrong (as in your case).
David Cunard: Additionally you consider that the United States’ Constitution would be suitable for the United Kingdom when it most certainly would not. Frankly, railings from a foreigner who appears to be ignorant of the merits of British democracy has very little affect on me except to irritate. Read up on King Gama, you have so much in common.
I DO consider the US Constitution to be suitable and adequate for Britain, yes. You could dissuade me with cogent reasons instead of playing the jingoistic card. I forgot, that is not your style to persuade with reason; you like to sit on the fence and point fingers, I remember.
I am completely ignorant of “British democracy” not just its merits, I have searched and searched for this illusive democracy you write about.
In any event, I still maintain that you DO have to respond to Mr. Roberts or I will work on getting you banned from here.
March 17th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
sclub1
“When you allow your Queen to be head of state for other countries such as Canada, Australia, Jamaica, and so many others, you lose the locality of the issue; it becomes a universal free for all to criticize. Therefore, I’m in.”
As far as I’m concerned you’re welcome to be in simply because (I assume) your ancestors had the ‘Common Sense; to get rid of monarchy. And yes, the pun very definitely was intended.
March 17th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Incidentally, David Cunard has STILL not replied to my question on this page asking what the difference is between an absolute monarch ans an hereditary dictator. He has also not yet, despite many requests, been able to think up a reply to the blog “What;s wrong with a simple choice”.
See http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=1941
March 17th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Getting back to the thread topic… I’m appalled just by the chummy hereditarianism that this wedding will illustrate. Brits will have to pay for the security costs of a celebration of international hereditarianism, with folks who inherited their big chairs from ma and pa being feted in preference to those who have gained a mandate from their fellow citizens.
March 17th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Thank you eclub1 for your endorsement! Its nice to be appreciated, and you’re very welcome to contribute to this site with your intelligent and thoughtful comments.
March 17th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
I am a Bahraini and I thank you very much for this gesture. I am hoping it will work because knowing these royals, the biggest and most valuable thing to them is their ego and this would definitely crush it. We look up to the British way of life which the supposed “king” is taking away from us so he should not be welcomed in your land. Besides, what is he going to wear? His army gear or a bloodstained cloak?
March 18th, 2011 at 1:06 am
May I use this opportunity to wish all a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day !!!!!!!!!!! I’m off to celebrate with a cold pint or two.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:04 am
@eclub1. I’ve just seen your very kind post. Thanks for including me. Whatever ‘clever’ cunardery appears here, its shallow picking and hollow argument does serve to strengthen resolve. In that, he is doing a grand job in my view. Every time he appears, he illustrates precisely the sort of groundless patronage we are seeking to eradicate in favour of a system based on fairness and merit.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:09 am
A: He also seems an enthusiast for the use of tear gas. I assume to be used by his minions and with him keeping well clear himself.
March 18th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
“Well, wait your heart out. I don’t know why you even post here;”
I’ve been asking Cunard this very question especially as he spectacularly fails to answer the most basic of questions – why is he a monarchist?
One can only come to the conclusion that:
A) He is rather embarrassed by the answer.
B) He has no real idea himself.
Constantly asking others to convince him is not only lazy, it’s completely false as well. If none of the articles and posts on this site convince him by now, then nothing will. So asking someone like eclub1 why HE posts here is somewhat brass necked!
March 18th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Back to “appalling messages”… I had a look at the old 1981 guest list and among the motley crew of hereditarians who showed up were a bunch of exiles… from Greece and Romania and elsewhere. It seems that it wasn’t enough to make a very expensive and public celebration of genetic entitlement ahead of democratic mandate – we had to pay to celebrate throwbacks who had been thrown out by their own people?
Will these exiles show up again I wonder…?
I do think we should continue to celebrate towns and cities that register an impressive level of indifference to the wedding. So far we have Sheffield and Hull. Perhaps the official name of KINGston upon Hull is becoming increasingly inappropriate.
Given that we don’t have regular referenda on the monarchy, the unwillingness of people get festive on this occasion will provide valuable evidence of the declining popularity of the monarchy in this country.
March 18th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Thank you Eclub for the accolade and may I say I always enjoy reading your posts. Do not let the jingoistic David Cunard, or anyone else like him, discourage you from getting involved here. I always request Americans to take a look at this site if I comment on any royal story in the American on-line press. I do so in the hope that Americans visiting this site will realize not all Brits are in thrall to this royal cabal, and the reasons why.
March 18th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Mr.
I hope that you’re okay and you read these words carefully ..
Dear sir, there is a large group of people of Bahrain refuse categorically to send a message describing the King of Bahrain dictator, we are the majority group in Bahrain, which like this king, and I hope to realize that what is happening in Bahrain due to the community that I called our dictator. Sir, we are in Bahrain enjoy security since a long time and you’ll realize what it means to enjoy the rights and security, and to whom I say with regret that it is to protect them assassinated the security of this country and have carried out atrocities, including murder and kidnapping and banditry and paralyzed economic and lying to the media as well as to the occupation of the largest public hospital and turn it into a den of the criminals and their plans, the terrorist managed from outside the country, my dear brother, that what is happening in Bahrain now for Aliguetsal of criminals, not innocent as you think, this is the youth group are a class soldier to outside interests want to that dominate the large geographic area so unite and fight Israel in the future .. We are a peaceful people and can not contribute to it, so we support the full support of all what the government of Bahrain, represented in the King Hamad, who made a great effort in order to avoid events that happen now, and has opened the area to discuss all the demands that they want more civilization, and their rejection of dialogue evidence of malicious intent that they set for themselves, I understand your sympathy with them, but make sure they are a group trained by Iran and Hezbollah to destabilize the security of States to special interests, I hope to discuss more about the schemes in this category and its goals, even know the real culprit behind what is happening, and I also hope that does not drift behind the false information, they planned well to win the media by lying and playing techniques video ..
thank you
March 18th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
cbruntstone
perhaps Hull upon Kingston might be more appropriate
March 18th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
My apologies to those readers who find this correspondence tedious, but the young person clearly is ignorant of much, if not all of British life and politics. He may mean well, but does not provide a solid foundation for what he writes. – D.C.
eclub1
“In any event, I still maintain that you DO have to respond to Mr. Roberts or I will work on getting you banned from here.”
In the words of Ronald Reagan (of whom I was not a supporter), “There you go again.” Like some tantrum-prone child who can’t get its own way, “I’ll get you banned”. Banning an individual is a technique of the losing and weakest side. It happens in all dictatorships.
“Show proof where I said Blair is “still” a member of parliament, and I’ll donate $1000 to your favorite charity.”
Soon as asked, done:
“The likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, all current members of parliament.”
I’d prefer the $1000 to go to a British Charity, but if needs be I could settle on one in the USA – example, the Human Rights Campaign (probably almost unknown in the UK.)
“I do feel the Queens name is in too many places”
Since you’ve never been to any part of the United Kingdom, how do you come to that conclusion? Her name is on a number of large non-governmental buildings, not because of her wishes, but those of the builder or commissioning party. An American example would be John F Kennedy International Airport, formerly Idlewild.
“I DO consider the US Constitution to be suitable and adequate for Britain”
You foolish man. The US Constitution is for a federation of states, all of which have their own constitution. Devolution not withstanding, mainland Britain is too small to have anything similar. A written Constitution would likely be more akin that of Japan, which incorporates a monarchy, for which you can thank America.
“you are the one that needs to get out of Britain once in a while.”
I have travelled more in my lifetime than yours; had you read any earlier post of mine you will know that I have been fortunate to maintain two homes, one on each side of the Atlantic. At this moment I am writing from Southern California, where I have owned property since 1973. I worked and lived in London for many years and my home in Britain is just 40 minutes away from there by train. Continental Europe is but a train ride by Eurostar. As a generality, I would say that Britons are far better travelled than Americans. It is you who needs to get out of wherever it is you live.
“When you allow your Queen to be head of state for other countries such as Canada, Australia, Jamaica, and so many others . . .”
“Allow” her to be head of state? Those nations can remove her at any time they wish. Australia may be the first, but at present it is not a pressing issue. The Governor-General is appointed by the government.
So, when can I expect the $1,000?
March 18th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12770820 More Biased reporting.. Gives impression Aussies are reformed republicans!
March 18th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
It should be remembered by anyone who can be bothered to remember it that the king of Bahrain merely declared himself a King in 2002; rather like Michael Jackson demanding to be addressed as the King of Pop. Prior to 2002, he was a humble self-effacing Emir. While all this overweening vanity may seem a bit ridiculous, is it any more ridiculous than the British royal family declaring themselves royal? Is any King or Queen legitimate? Ya got me.
@sclub 1 – To be included on your little list makes my mother’s bosom swell with pride.
@David
‘…Read up on King Gama, you have so much in common..’
Ah, always one of the deadliest tools in any polemicists’ arsenal–comparing the opponent to an affectionately drawn character in one of the lesser known G&S operettas.
‘…..I don’t know why you even post here; you’re not British…’
Bit xenophobic eh? Just after you’ve finished lecturing me about supposed ageism as well (!)… I find an American viewpoint interesting because they’ve grown up outside the reach of the BBC bullshit machine.
‘…and have the effrontery to criticise a system, which you have never experienced..’
Do you have any strong feelings about Germany during the Third Reich? Presumably, never having directly experienced it, you’d be loath to criticise it. I’m not in any way suggesting Britain and Nazi Germany are moral equivalencies, but it’s perfectly legitimate for S club7 to comment on UK polity.
‘…As you may one day discover, it is not the sole prerogative of the young to be concerned for their fellow man…’
You should be writing for Hallmark Cards with a talent for sentiment like that.
March 18th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Hassan,
You say: “there is a large group of people of Bahrain refuse categorically to send a message describing the King of Bahrain dictator, we are the majority group in Bahrain, which like this king”
What proof is there of this? I am not aware that your ;king; has ever stood for election, so this seems to be AT BEST doubtful.
And: “and lying to the media as well as to the occupation of the largest public hospital and turn it into a den of the criminals and their plans”
UN Human Rights chief Navi Pillay has in fact described the attack on the hospital by state;security; forces as “a blatant violation of International Law”. This does not exactly agree with your description.
Finally, can I suggest a way forward? The hereditary dictator should immediately stand down, and seek election as President, and allow anyone else who wishes to stand for election to do so. This way everyone would know for certain what part of the population wants what.
March 18th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
PS It’s called DEMOCRACY.
March 18th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
In fact here’s a longer quote from Navi Pillay:
“”Governments are obliged to protect the rights to life and health of the people, but we are hearing very credible reports indicating that they are in fact obstructing access to such rights,” said Miss Pillay.
She revealed that her office has received calls and emails from individuals in Bahrain, who are “terrified about the armed forces’ intentions.”
“There are reports of arbitrary arrests, killings, beatings of protesters and of medical personnel, and of the takeover of hospitals and medical centres by various security forces.
“This is shocking and illegal conduct,” she stressed, calling on the security forces to leave health care facilities and to stop harassing health workers.
Pillay said the government must stop using force against unarmed protesters and to allow the injured to get treatment.
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/bahrain/8387931/Bahrain-takeover-of-hospitals-violation-of-international-law.html
March 18th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
To: Cunard
David Cunard: “Soon as asked, done:
Why we have lodged a complaint against Andrew Windsor, March 7th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
‘The likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, all current members of parliament.’
I’d prefer the $1000 to go to a British Charity, but if needs be I could settle on one in the USA – example, the Human Rights Campaign (probably almost unknown in the UK.)”
In order for the ignorance you feign here to obtain, you’d have to convince everyone that you understood Blair and Brown to be one and the same person, or that I left out “are” between ‘all’ and ‘current’. I suggest that you re-read it, this time assume that I meant Blair, Brown, and all current members of parliament. When you read articles and comments on blogs, you should try to apply commonsense as well, and resolve any ambiguities in the light most favorable to the discussion, and events. Commas are commonly used to join independent clauses, after introductory clauses and phrases, to set off interruptions within the sentence, with nonrestrictive phrases and clauses, and between items or modifiers in a series. Plus, it is customary to use a comma after an introductory adverbial clause. Cunard, remember that, unlike a clause, a phrase is a group of words without a subject and a predicate. I believe you confused a participial phrase with a gerund phrase. Unfortunately, you fail to win a grand for your charity. Not to worry however, with your record, there will be plenty of attempts.
David Cunard: Since you’ve never been to any part of the United Kingdom, how do you come to that conclusion? Her name is on a number of large non-governmental buildings, not because of her wishes, but those of the builder or commissioning party. An American example would be John F Kennedy International Airport, formerly Idlewild”.
Here, check this out as one tiny example, and bears your name:
Queen Elizabeth II to Name New Cunard Ship
by Paul Motter
Oct. 4, 2010
Read more: http://www.cruisemates.com/articles/feature/Cunard-Queen-Elizabeth-100410.cfm#ixzz1GzOjlglz
David Cunard: “Allow” her to be head of state? Those nations can remove her at any time they wish. Australia may be the first, but at present it is not a pressing issue. The Governor-General is appointed by the government.
So, when can I expect the $1,000?
Until they do remove her, the monarch/y is subject to criticism. It is not as easy as you think to remove unelected, unaccountable power. Republic can attest to this. It is not even easy to criticize it.
When can you expect the $1000? Well, wait your heart out. I don’t know why you even post here.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
I know it’s a few comments back, but “go to America?”
Really? Is that the monarchist’s equivalent of ‘get back to Russia’ or something and why is it always America?
There are over 190 countries in the world and, at least, 150 of them are rebublics…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government
Perhaps Simon feels that ‘go to Switzerland’ or Uruguay or France, say, might have less impact? In which case I wonder what his point could be.
One of the countries that isn’t a republic, of course, is Saudi Arabia so, presumably, people who post here because they support the aims of Republic, rather than troll, could use that as a counter-argument to the sycophants?
If you like the monarchy so much, why not have an absolutist one? Go to Qatar or Swaziland or the Vatican. We don’t need people-haters!
March 19th, 2011 at 6:32 am
eclub1
I really do not need lessons in English grammar. If you had any decency, you would simply admit that you are wrong; it is obvious to everyone except yourself that you meant that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both still Members of Parliament. A graceful acknowledgment that you were incorrect would have meant so much more than a weak defence. Rather than a payment to the charity of my choice, take a short vacation in Britain, three days including air can probably be found on Virgin Vacations. At least you would be better informed than you are at present.
With regard to the Cunard Line, now owned by Carnival Corporation, it was they who requested the naming of the new vessel to be Queen Elizabeth, following the line’s tradition of Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth 2 (“QE2″), Queen Mary 2 and Queen Victoria. The Queen did not make the request but agreed to that made by the company. Incidentally, the name was actually inscribed on the vessel long before before the official naming ceremony. If you’re ever in the Los Angeles area, visit Long Beach, where the (original) Queen Mary is located. A marvel of British engineering. If ever you can afford it, take a voyage on one of the new ships, that is unless you might feel out-of-place in a vessel named for royalty.
“It is not as easy as you think to remove unelected, unaccountable power.”
When did I suggest it was easy? Of course it isn’t, any more than it is to add an Amendment to the United States’ Constitution. Australia tried but the electorate rejected the idea of changing to a republic.
Did you ever look up King Gama? If not, you really, really should.
March 19th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Dear Mr. Smith,
It is a total disgrace for the British Monarchy to insult the feelings of 300 million Shiites by inviting the King of Bahrain to the royal wedding. His hands are full of cold blood and unimaginable atrocities inflicted by him on his own people. I wonder how William and Kate will take it to know that their marriage will be blessed by 300+ million curses and ill-wishes.
Hope you can deliver our decries to the Royals. Thanks for your humane and honest stand on describing the Bahrainis’ plight to the world.
March 19th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Unless William and Kate want to endorse the killing of armless poor people of Bahrain then can they invite the King Hamad! It is appalling to see the west turn a blind sight against the atrocities that take place under their very own nose and naval bases. The least that could be done it to call them by their true characters, ie murderers and dictators and to boycott them. I hope you can take this message to them and thanks for your just views.
March 19th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Dr. Haider Al-Lawati, OMAN and Yasir Al-Lawati, Oman,
We are of course trying to persuade both the British public and our unelected monarchy to do just that. We are not in any way supporters or opponents of ant religion, but we ARE Democrats who believe the killing of unarmed civilians by unelected dictators totally unjustified, whether or not the dictators are ‘kings’. We are also aware of the killings in your own country in recent weeks, and I have attempted to ensure that your own ‘king’ is also refused attendance at the wedding.
March 19th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Hopefully the people of Bahrain can take advantage of “King” Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s absence while he is attending the wedding.
March 19th, 2011 at 11:10 am
‘The likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, all current members of parliament.’ eclub1
Simply put, if the meaning was as Cunard was trying to suggest this would no doubt have read ‘both members of parliament’.
March 19th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Oh dear, it’s happened again.
The intervention of David Cunard has clogged the discussion with “he said, she said” points of contention and people are having to devote time to defending their own integrity and grammar at the expense of debating the principles of monarchy versus republicanism.
David, is it so important to “catch us out”?
March 19th, 2011 at 11:41 am
“David, is it so important to “catch us out”?”
As I said before, nitpicking at its finest! If Cunard had a real argument for monarchy, he’d have absolutely no hesitation in stating his position on this forum! Why so evasive???
As per usual, Cunard is trying to wreck discussion by taking this thread down his own perculiar path.
March 19th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
“Cunard is trying to wreck discussion by taking this thread down his own perculiar path.” iMatt
Yes absolutely. This is very evident. He has nothing positive to offer and appears merely to be amusing himself. So let’s leave him talking cleverly to himself?
March 19th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Phaedra:
You say: “He has nothing positive to offer and appears merely to be amusing himself”
Shouldn’t that have been “abusing himself”?
March 19th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Yes, he does appear to be pointless troll if ever there was one. And/or he’s totally obsessed and fascinated with republicans.
Thanks lard and eclub. Making people laugh is a good way to win them round, if we had the money I think we could make a really funny advert for Republic with the idea of someone who is being driven to distraction by trivial royal non-news stories on the news on their TV every time they switch it on, with Nicolas Witchell et al and their nonsensical hyperbole e.g. “Everyone in Canada is absolutely thrilled at this honour the royal couple are giving their country” etc, which is clearly utter mince, and appalling instances of how indefensible it is, like ‘Queen tried to use state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace’ in the Independent. And then, to this poor, suffering, infuriated person Republic is offered like a saviour! ‘Are YOU being driven absolutely MAD by the royal family? – WE can help!’ The success of the famous ‘royal sick bag’ thing would seem to suggest there’s an awful lot of people out there who are not actually simpering away in excitement at the thought of royals. What I’ll have to keep on my person is my Republic membership card and one of those sick bags and then hopefully I’ll be safe, or prepared anyway!
March 19th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Brilliantly imaginative Margery!
Richard Vernon. You may think that. I couldn’t possibly comment!!
March 19th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
We could also contrast
‘Here’s the non-news they’re shoving down your throat’ with
‘Here’s the real news they’ve legislated to prevent you from discovering again’.
March 19th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
I loved that post too Marjory and it captures a very serious point which is that commonwealth countries are being reflected back to us by our state broadcaster as being more pro-monarchy than we know for a fact that they are – I found it very interesting that the BBC piece on William in Australia quoted Flint as if he was some kind of wise guru – australian monarchists as far as I can see are as bizarre a crowd as our own – if not more so.
March 19th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Probably every British republican wants an elected accountable head of state, but what other issues do republicans have regarding the setting up of an English (British?) republic?
I think that more accountability for those at the top, i.e. the bankers and conglomerates and corporations who seem to get away with not paying fair amounts of tax would be a start. One of the problems I have with monarchy is that where they lead, i.e. in evading certain taxes, in evading any kind of real public scrutiny like the FOI, and in evading any real accountability, is an example to all the unscrupulous individuals who also want to evade tax and so on and so on. In other words, instead of setting a good example which monarchists say they do, they actually in reality set very bad examples to follow. And this has a trickle-down effect throughout society.
I would be interested in hearing any other republican’s take on this, and even the odd monarchist or two.
March 19th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“As per usual, Cunard is trying to wreck discussion by taking this thread down his own perculiar path”.. iMatt
In Re:
Cunardtroll, I get it. See this:http://bios.weddingbee.com/pics/41540/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg
March 19th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
That made me laugh out loud.
March 19th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Richard Vernon, thanks for your response. I would like to clarify that our Sultan has promptly responded to the recent events in the country, including the unfortunate killing of ONE civilian, by replacing most of the ministers in the government, about 15 ministers, specially those responsible to the state of affairs which lead to the current situation. Also he is the first to announce major changes addressing almost all the of the demands of the protesters (if you disagree, then please provide the exact demands not met yet). I hope others would learn from his wisdom and follow his suit. This is not the place to do him justice. Please don’t compare him with the others. Also, if ever elections were held to elect a monarch in Oman, I’m positively sure that he would win by the majority.
March 19th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
‘Please don’t compare him with the others. Also, if ever elections were held to elect a monarch in Oman, I’m positively sure that he would win by the majority”.–Yasir Al-Lawati, Oman
That is the ONLY thing that counts for us democrats. If he TRULY wants to please anybody, including readers of this blog, the monarch should prove your last sentiment: Get a written constitution done, by the people. Make elections happen. Present himself as a candidate. If he wins, then he is legitimate. If he DOESN’T do this, or until he does this, he is illegitimate.
March 19th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Dear Mr. Vernon,
Please allow me to clarify one point pertaining your comment about Sultan Qaboos.
We still do have few small but peaceful protests here an there.
The series of protests started with few hundred youths taking it to the streets in a northern border port city of Sohar. On the first day of the protest, police confronted the protestors. One young man was shot dead. The action backfired and caused more protesters to join the group.
Sultan Qaboos is a very wise and kind man. He ordered the police to withdraw and allow the protestors to continue. Next, he sacked the entire cabinet including the three very powerful ministers, namely ministers of police, intelligence, and royal court. Within few days, most of the demands laid down by the protestors were swiftly met by the Sultan. This change took in parallel with changes in salaries, social benefits, riterment schemes, etc. On the political side, he orederd swift ammendments to be implemented to allow greater independence and control for the parliment.
Now compare this situation with that of Bahrain where two thirds of the oppressed population embarking on peaceful protests are confronted with fire from militry, police and mercenaries.
Regards.
March 19th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
“Now compare this situation with that of Bahrain where two thirds of the oppressed population embarking on peaceful protests are confronted with fire from militry, police and mercenaries”.—Dr. Haider Al-Lawati
Doc, with all due respect, it is oppression when someone stays in power without the consent of the governed. Your sultan, if he seeks legitimacy, will NOT get it by comparing apples and oranges; he would have to stand for election, and get the people to elect him head of the country. I’m sorry. He could be a great man; he could be as strong as an ox or the mountains; he could be as gentle as a lamb; or as wise as a serpent; or even, as cool as a cucumber, he needs both legitimacy, and accountability.
March 20th, 2011 at 1:01 am
cbrunstrom
“The intervention of David Cunard has clogged the discussion”
Au contraire! It is the responses to my first post which have clogged your discussion. Subsequently I made the effort to apologise for my replies to the perennially misinformed American contributor, yet others want to chip in.
One thing you might consider, and I have not read that it has been done, is to persuade everyone of the 10,000 or so supporters to write to their MP about changing the Constitution. It shouldn’t be too daunting a task to match members with their constituencies. Open letters mean nothing, unless a full page in The Times or The Telegraph, which is likely to be beyond Republic’s means. But a first class stamp should be affordable for each individual. If you mean business, “put your money where your mouth is” and see how acceptable the suggestion is to individual members of Parliament. The results should be most informative.
March 20th, 2011 at 1:42 am
It’s almost as if David is desperately trying to breach the united front against any more cunardery and chicanery by changing tack & affecting a benign interest in republic’s campaign strategy….
March 20th, 2011 at 6:14 am
The lard ascending
“It’s almost as if . . . affecting a benign interest in republic’s campaign strategy….”
I haven’t seen any “strategy” or attempt to convince Parliament that a change is necessary. As eclub1 probably knows, it is suggested that Americans who are disgruntled with an issue should write to their Congressperson (horrid word!) I make the suggestion since the result would be of interest to both sides of the argument. As I have repeatedly written, for myself I am happy with the present arrangement, but whether members of parliament are is a different matter. Not approaching them could appear as if Republic supporters are afraid that the result might not be in their favour. It hardly needs to be said that my guess is that the result would be negative, although better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.
March 20th, 2011 at 6:31 am
“As eclub1 probably knows, it is suggested that Americans who are disgruntled with an issue should write to their Congressperson (horrid word!) I make the suggestion since the result would be of interest to both sides of the argument”. — Cunard
Congresspersons and parliamentarians are two different animals. One is in charge, while the other is servile; one takes an oath to defend the constitution of the country, the other takes a secret oath to protect a monarch; one can debate whatever on the congress floor, one is admonished to be “careful”, “rare”, and “respectful”; one has a constitutional model and authority, vested by the people, and the other is virtually at the mercy of a crown overlord.
Having said all that, I believe it is a fair idea to contact these parliamentarians, if only to tell them that we’re not as dumb as they think we are. We need a written constitution, and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is too poor to vote every 3 to 5 years for just “commons” (shaggy name!)…
We need to vote for the upper house, and the head of state. We need a debate in parliament on this.
March 20th, 2011 at 7:10 am
David,
Letter writing is going on all the time. Republic is engaged in constant correspondence and debate. The profile of the organisation is much higher than it used to be and is growing. This is a long game and requires stamina. A first aim is to normalise republicanism as the legitimate perspective of a growing minority rather than permitting the acceptance of monarchism as the default setting of every Briton.
You say you are “happy with the present arrangement”. It does seem to me that you enjoy trying to detect internal inconsistencies and differences of emphasis between republican contributors rather more than presenting organised arguments for the monarchy. The quality and overall interest of the debate would improve if you could put down in a paragraph exactly why monarchy makes you happy.
March 20th, 2011 at 8:54 am
@eclub
Are you using the royal ‘we’? WE need a debate in Parliament? Didn’t know US citizens ( non expats or dual passport holders) had an MP to write to.
Like our friend David I am puzzled as to why you are so interested in our affairs.
March 20th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Yasir Al-Lawati, Oman and Dr. Haider Al-Lawati,
Thank you again for your comments. I hope you are right in your assessment to your Sultan’s ability. I wish you and your country all the best, and I hope you achieve peace and democracy as soon as possible.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:06 am
eclub1
‘Please don’t compare him with the others. Also, if ever elections were held to elect a monarch in Oman, I’m positively sure that he would win by the majority”.–Yasir Al-Lawati, Oman
“That is the ONLY thing that counts for us democrats. If he TRULY wants to please anybody, including readers of this blog, the monarch should prove your last sentiment: Get a written constitution done, by the people. Make elections happen. Present himself as a candidate. If he wins, then he is legitimate. If he DOESN’T do this, or until he does this, he is illegitimate”
As so often, eclub, you’ve hit the nail right on the head. I couldn’t agree more.
March 20th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Britatin and other countries have attacked Libya.
“The international community was intervening to s”top the “murderous madness” of Col Gaddafi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.
“In Libya, the civilian population, which is demanding nothing more than the right to choose their own destiny, is in mortal danger,” he warned. “It is our duty to respond to their anguished appeal.”
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568
The right to choose our own destiny is of course what we, and seemingly many people in most parts of the world, are asking for, though I’m not suggesting cruise missile attacks on Buck House just yet….
March 20th, 2011 at 11:09 am
May God Bless You . I am sure Your point got acrossed.
March 20th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Dear Graham Smith
I would like to thank you very very much from every the bottom of our (Bahrainis) hearts. This King is killing his people, and its continuous, until now, more and more people are being killed in very very anti-humanity way…
And here is a request, please keep your writing until this cross… We all Bahrainis with you…
THANK YOU THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
March 20th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
This may be off topic but maybe not as it is an example of the damage royals and royal connexions can do. Charles Windsor is known to be a great admirer of Lord Mountbatten. The name actually is Battenberg but that had to be disguised in view of the German connexions. Mountbatten is described by Andrew Roberts in “Eminent Churchillians” ( came across it in my son’s bookshelf) as “a mendacious, intellectually limited hustler, whose negligence and incompetence resulted in may unnecessary deaths – the numbers of which increased exponentially as his meteoric career progressed.”
Philip Ziegler, his biographer described Mountbatten’s combination of gargantuan vanity with cockily unlimited self-assurance and conceit. In his handling of the decolonisation of India he was acquitted of error, manipulation and double dealing. That verdict in no longer safe. His reputation is ripe for revision.
He rarely read a book, his favourite authors were Agatha Christie and Barbara Cartland and he was promoted far beyond his abilities. Accompanying the Prince of Wales in Barbados in 1920 he poked special fun at a fat old woman in a crowd of niggers. He was vindictive and cruel as well as being ignorant.
Today, as with Mountbatten, we have royals with special and secret access to power and the unexceptional Harry, William and Edward are larded with status, military and otherwise. As an example of the destructive effects of unearned status and power look no further.
The non payment of that fine by Kate is merely an introduction to a life of privilege, special rights and a sense that the royals transcend the rules by which the rest of us must live.
March 20th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Don’t take this the wrong way, but have a care, Broga! Much as I clutch your postings to my bosom and will take them to the grave with me, I’m sure you’re quoting when you use the n-word there so use quotation marks I say! When Paxo interviewed the head of the EDL on Newsnight he went straight to inflammatory racist language used on their website to unseat the EDL morlock. Er…I’m not saying you used such language, but we should be ultra careful.
March 20th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
@The lard ascending: I did use quotation marks but then something messed up, they turned into something else and I couldn’t get them back. It caused me some distress that I failed. Anyway, here they are as the quote was written by Andrew Roberts.
….his principal source of amusement arose from the social solecisms committed by colonials failing to address the Prince correctly. In Barbados in March 1920, Mountbatten poked special fun at “one fat old woman” in “a crowd of niggers”.
May as well add another piece about this charmer. Mountbatten persuaded Sir Godfrey Thomas, the Prince’s kind and long suffering Person Secretary to, “come and touch this bullock and something very funny will happen to you.” Thomas trustingly put his finger on the spot indicated and was kicked in the upper part of his leg. In Mountbatten’s words, “The look of surprise in Godfrey’s face as he staggered back kept me in fits of laughter the whole afternoon.”
Page 57. of Emminent Churchillians by Andrew Roberts.
March 20th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Mountbatten is especially loathed in Canada where he is regarded (correctly) as the guiding genius behind Canada’s WWII version of Gallipoli – the Dieppe raid. British generals were familiar enough with Mountbatten and his record to keep their own troops well away from participation in the raid, but Canadian generals were eager for a scrap and were prepared to sign up to Mountbatten’s hubristic little suicide mission.
March 20th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
@cbrunstrom: Interesting. His progress seems to have been due entirely to his royal connections. Andrew Roberts again, “he rarely took up a book unless it was one of geneaology, most especially relating to his own forebears.” His friend Sir Solly Zuckerman noticed that, “sometimes as he read his lips moved, as if he were reading the words aloud.”
He pulled family strings to get himself invited on the Prince’s tour of the Empire. His bumptiousness irritated everyone else aboard the ship. I have heard similar remarks about Andrew Windsor.
Andrew Roberts about Mountbatten: “For all his much vaunted friendship with the Prince of Wales Mountbatten found discretion the better part of valour during the Abdication crisis. The speed with which he transferred his allegiance from Fort Belvedere to the new residents of Buckingham Palace almost left burn marks on the red carpet.”
Roberts on the Canadian debacle: Mountbatten “Like a spoiled child he toyed with men’s lives with an indifference to casualties that can only be explained by his insatiable, even psychopathic ambition.” An inquest was shelved so as “rather than embarrass Mountbatten.”
This then, is the fruit of royal connections. Despite a flawed character, ignorance, indifference to men’s lives he continued to be promoted to satisfy his vaunting ambition and inquests were shelved and history written, which was little more than spin, to exculpate this man.
I think there are lessons to be learned here. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose where the royals are concerned. The time for change is long overdue.
March 20th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
“Roberts on the Canadian debacle: Mountbatten “Like a spoiled child he toyed with men’s lives with an indifference to casualties that can only be explained by his insatiable, even psychopathic ambition.” An inquest was shelved so as “rather than embarrass Mountbatten.”
This then, is the fruit of royal connections. Despite a flawed character, ignorance, indifference to men’s lives he continued to be promoted to satisfy his vaunting ambition and inquests were shelved and history written, which was little more than spin, to exculpate this man.”
I’d heard other things about Mountbatten, but none so serious as the ‘charges’ being laid against him here. It doesn’t really surprise me that much to be honest. Mountbatten was I suppose the last of the ‘old guard’, when the Empire was at the zenith of its reach and power, even though it was also disintegrating at the same time. He represents empire power, and that power was then certainly personified in the form of aristocracy and royalty. And as mentioned here, here was another man who, lacking any real intelligence or talent or brilliance of any kind, was consumed with a burning ambition denied most other people who do not have the same social connections; a person who without said same social connections would have been lucky just to scrape by in life, like lots of people in fact.
Yet for all his numerous faults of all kinds, these people are presented again and again, as somehow wiser, smarter, kinder, more deserving, and whatever the case their faults should be overlooked and their ‘talents’ should be overemphasized, ultimately justifying all kinds of double-standards and promoting mediocrity at the very highest level. Sound familiar?
Just to change the subject slightly, there is an exceptionally good (and brief) book called ‘Ornamentalism: How the British saw their Empire’ by a writer called David Cannadine. He argues that, from the accepted notions that the British Empire revolved on notions of race, it was actually, to put it simply, the idea that British people (especially posh upper class ones) wanted to replicate the British class system throughout the empire. It’s a very interesting read to be honest.
March 20th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
T.Hughes. I came across the Mountbatten business by accident and I was amazed at just how destructive and deadly to others this vain man seems to have been. Andrew Roberts is a serious historian and an assiduous researcher. He is no casual journalist.
How many current royals are floated into positions where they have no right to be. Harry Windsor into Sandhurst on very dubious grounds and determined to lead his men. Perhaps a good thing he was sent back home to thump photographers outside nighclubs.
Edward Windsor, failed his basic training, but still flaunting a general’s uniform and inspecting a tank regiment.
Andrew Windsor thoroughly disliked by anyone who came across him as an obnoxious prat.
And here lies their problem. They can never be judged on objective terms. They are surrounded by generals and admirals who, to their shame, are only too ready to “look after them” and ease their way.
March 20th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
“How many current royals are floated into positions where they have no right to be….And here lies their problem. They can never be judged on objective terms. They are surrounded by generals and admirals who, to their shame, are only too ready to “look after them” and ease their way.”
And for what good reason we may all ask? To prolong the prejudice and hierarchy that sets people against each other, and that which creates oceans of prejudice and injustice, whilst at the same time justifying wealth for a relative cosseted few, and in some cases relative poverty for millions of others.
Hierarchy is wonderful, if you are at the top or place comfortably in the middle, it is only at the bottom that the injustice of such notions can be seen, felt and understood only too well. Racism similarly as a system is wonderful if you are white and seemingly on the ‘right side’, but not so wonderful if you are Black or Jewish or Irish, or whatever else throughout history has been deemed inferior. I’m preaching to the converted here of course, but you know what I’m getting at. These are all systems that need tackling in every form, and in every way, and need refuting as prejudiced nonsense, and now way to run any country.
Side by side the notion that in Britain there is a need for and even love for hierarchy and class and unfair social orders, there is also a strong egalitarian strain in Britain, even historically. Sometimes one won out over the other. I feel that at this time of writing, we are in one of those transitory periods, where nothing is necessarily written in stone and even the very ground we walk on is not solid; there is, I feel, change in the air.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
If you serve this peaceful protests ?
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/20/142341.html
“There is no people’s revolution in Bahrain but a sectarian one,” al-Qaradawi said, “what is happening is not like what has happened in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, but it is the empowerment of some factions via foreign forces on others; thereby it does not include the demands of all of the Bahraini people.”
According to al-Qaradawi, the imposition of one’s faction’s will power for its sole interest has snowballed events in the Gulf country. He said that when Sunni Bahrainis saw the protests by the Shiites, around 450 thousands went on the streets to demonstrate for their own set of demands.
“The other Arab revolutions, with a common denominator of the oppressed against the oppressor, the Bahraini one is a sectarian, with Shiites against Sunnis,” he said, adding “in Egypt the revolution was inclusive of all Egyptians with all of their different backgrounds, Muslims, Christians, old, young, secular, religious, and the same can be said for Tunisians, Yemenis, and Libyans.”
Meanwhile, Qaradawi said that he is not against Shiites, but he is against zealots, and against divisiveness and the empowering of one faction against another.
He also described the protests by the Shiites as not so ‘peaceful’. He said that “the Shiites attacked Sunnis, and took over their mosques, and used weapons just like the hooligans we saw in Yemen and Egypt.”
“For this reason I did not address the Bahraini revolution, because I could not find myself free, and I don’t have the enough information on what is happening.”
He also urged ‘rationales’ from all sides to open a dialogue and set their differences, and he praised the Bahraini King’s Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa initiative for dialogue with the opposition as “good”.
The prominent Islamic scholar warned of ‘danger’ when he described some Shiite Bahrainis carrying pictures of the Supreme Leader of Iran since 1989 Ayatollah Khamenei and Lebanon’s Hizbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah.
“They carried Khamenei’s and Nasralah’s pictures as if they belong to Iran and not Bahrain, after all Bahrain belongs to the GCC, and we need them to show real citizenry.”
Qaradawi expressed his affection to the Bahraini ruling family in his sermon, and described his relation with the late Sheikh Isa ibn Salman al-Khalifa as close.
March 20th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
@ T. Hughes
“Hierarchy is wonderful, if you are at the top or place comfortably in the middle, it is only at the bottom that the injustice of such notions can be seen, felt and understood only too well.”
On the face of it, this would seem an obvious conclusion but, if you are atop of the hierarchy and you need to keep the hierarchy in place, you have to expend resources in huge quantities to keep the status quo.
This may mean in many countries, the elite will need to sap off the wealth of that country to preserve power (see what is happenning in the Arab world for reference).
In Britain, we have the principle of patronage and class which concentrates resources in the hands of a few in order to maintain position.
In the main, patronage identifies people who can represent and perpetuate the establishment, with the occasional school lollipop lady being chucked a lowly ranked gong for standing out in the rain for the past fifty years, as a sop to good PR.
In many ways, the need to divert resources to prop up something that will not stand on its own on merit simply demonstrates that without wealth and sycophancy, the monarchy is moribund, redundant,unaccountable and unfair.
March 21st, 2011 at 12:57 am
What do you call Prince Andrew without a job? Prince Edward! Boom boom.
What’s the betting that Sarah Kellen won’t make it to forty? Or even 32? (that’s NOT intended as a joke )….I’m no conspiracy theorist, but her dying in a mysterious car accident wouldn’t surprise me in the least….
@T. Hughes
Cannadine accepted a knighthood in 2009….another idol with feet of clay. His ‘Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy’ is a cracking book. He spends 600+ pages exploring how the traditional aristocracy lost influence, and then in the final chapter, has to concede that ‘approaching the year 2000’ ( the book was written in 1999) ‘Britain’s richest man remains a Duke, and so does Britain’s largest private landowner’ (think he means the Duke of Westminster in both cases) Worth reading the last chapter alone if you can’t be bothered reading the book….
March 21st, 2011 at 1:27 am
The Mail on Sunday reported today that Kate’s mum has been berating the local landlord who has been selling tickets at £15 a head for a royal party.
Her complaint was….. wait for it…. that celebrating in the local pub would turn the event into a CIRCUS!
You really couldn’t make it up!
March 21st, 2011 at 6:33 am
A financial reporting question. In 2005 it was necessary for the royals to report trips cost £2500 or more. That limit was raised to £10,000. In both years £2.1 was spent on helicopters (both the royal helicopter, and chartered helicopters). In 2004-2005 63/69 charter trips were itemized, and 41/135 royal helicopter trips were itemized. In 2009-2010 a total of zero/62 charter trips and 8/136 trips on the royal helicopter were itemized.
———————–
May I suggest that a simple matrix for domestic trips would be more useful than this accounting which reveals nothing. On the columns would consist of royal families (Prince of Wales, Princess Royal, etc). The columns would be mode of travel (royal helicopter, charter helicopter, charter fixed wing, royal train, and combinations ). The matrix would have number of trips.
======================================
For instance you know that a jet was chartered for £15,424 for the Prince of Wales and the Duchess to fly 658 miles to “View rehearsals for St Magnus Festival, visit Royal National Lifeboat Institution and European Marine Energy Centre, and other engagement”. This trip is one of 37 domestic trips that are itemized because it costs more than £10,000 . But there are 228 domestic trips that are not itemized. It would be better to simply see a matrix of all 228+37=265 trips, as to who is going by what mode. {I left out 58 trips by scheduled flight and rail because they are probably staff trips).
=================
Right now you have charges of over £3.5 million for domestic travel, and you have 37 trips itemized of which 19 involve the royal train.
=================
All international trips are itemized and should continue to be itemized.
It would be much easier to read the report, and much more helpful.
March 21st, 2011 at 6:35 am
In 2009-2010 a total of zero/62 helicopter charter trips and 8/136 trips on the royal helicopter were itemized.
May I suggest that a simple matrix for domestic trips would be more useful than this accounting which reveals little. On the columns would consist of royal families (Prince of Wales, Princess Royal, etc). The columns would be mode of travel (royal helicopter, charter helicopter, charter fixed wing, royal train, and combinations ). The matrix would have number of trips.
Only 37 domestic trips that are itemized because it costs more than £10,000 . But there are 228 domestic trips that are not itemized. It would be better to simply see a matrix of all 228+37=265 trips, as to who is going by what mode. {I left out 58 trips by scheduled flight and rail because they are probably staff trips).
All international trips are itemized and should continue to be itemized.
It would be much easier to read the report, and much more helpful.
March 21st, 2011 at 8:18 am
“What’s the betting that Sarah Kellen won’t make it to forty?…I’m no conspiracy theorist, but…” Lardy
I think that a conspiracy is highly likely. In fact it is quite clear that some of these people subvert protocols through conspiracies and cannot survive without them. The recent reports which highlight the vacillations by apologists to confirm or deny awkward questions surrounding Andrew Windsor already suggest it.
My money is on a withdrawal, following some sort of covert settlement, before it really gets off the ground – riches beyond wildest dreams encouraging a Lethian forgetfulness.
March 21st, 2011 at 12:19 pm
“In many ways, the need to divert resources to prop up something that will not stand on its own on merit simply demonstrates that without wealth and sycophancy, the monarchy is moribund, redundant,unaccountable and unfair.”
Yep, all of the above I agree with. If you starve any regime of cash, it would eventually disappear, or perhaps get a reality check, like most of us do on cold, windy and rainy monday mornings. It is the unfairness that gets to me the most; I can’t understand any person in Britain, who is perhaps struggling to pay a mortgage or find work or get a better paying job etc, who at the same time looks up to the monarchy with blinkers on, it defies belief to be honest.
“Cannadine accepted a knighthood in 2009….another idol with feet of clay. His ‘Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy’ is a cracking book. He spends 600+ pages exploring how the traditional aristocracy lost influence, and then in the final chapter, has to concede that ‘approaching the year 2000’ ( the book was written in 1999) ‘Britain’s richest man remains a Duke, and so does Britain’s largest private landowner’ (think he means the Duke of Westminster in both cases) Worth reading the last chapter alone if you can’t be bothered reading the book….”
I’m a little disappointed with his accepting a knighthood, but as you say, feet of clay hey?! Yes, apparently the Duke is the richest man in Britain, as he owns prime real estate in West London and, if I’m not mistaken, parts of Manhattan too, amongst many other things he has his fingers in.
Thanks for the replies.
March 21st, 2011 at 5:23 pm
@Martin G. I liked your little snippet about Kate’s mum worried about the £15 charge by the pub turning the party into a circus. Hasn’t taken her long to acquire a superior attitude. I wonder what description she would apply to her daughter, unlike the rest of the country, not paying a modest parking fine. Seems as if ripping off the “subjects”, living like leaches in tax funded luxury and making sure you take plenty and give nothing is OK. A landlord wants to make a few quid and suddenly its a circus.
The entire nonsense of the nuptials is already a pantomime.
March 21st, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Perhaps Carole Middleton was calling on the landlord to see if he’d be interested in a bulk purchase of her company’s British Street Party Cups, £2.99 for a packet of twelve:
http://www.partypieces.co.uk/special-occasions/british-vintage-street-party/british-street-party-cups.html
With that sort of hypocrisy, it likes like the Middletons have found their perfect partners!
March 21st, 2011 at 9:15 pm
@Martin Hatter. Well, well! These two families are made for each other. Shameless.
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:07 am
@ MartinHatter
Yep.
Just considering ordering the British Street Party Cake Stands and British Street Party Napkins (complete with royal images and “God Save the Queen” logo from the same web site.
I wonder where I can hire the British Street Party Charlie Cairoli Wedding Car? You know, the one with the wobbly wheels, noisy exhaust and the doors that fall off?
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:20 pm
No chance, I suppose, of the tyrants of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other stars of the unelected firmament calling in on some of the street parties to say “hello.” Perhaps at that £15 a time pub. The Bahrain tyrant could say a few words.
The Bahrain tyrant: “No folks, don’t get up. I am not going to lob you with tear gas or blast you with machine guns. Just came to say hello and see what you are getting for your £15. Your not going to actually eat that stuff are you? No caviare and fine wine for you thrn? As a good friend of the Windsors, and I must be or why would they invite me, I am here on a freebie. Gotta go. I might have to put down another rising of the subjects who have silly ideas about unelected sovereigns. The Windsors are so lucky they don’t have to bother with this.
You lot have been brainwashed into knee jerk Windsor isdolatory. Supine parliament who can’t even question them, throw a few meaningless titles to MPs and press barons, keep the BBC royal spin doctor on board. I tell you they don’t know how lucky they are.
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
@ MartinHatter
i like the cups with royal style crest and “long live G&T!” written on them. Must have been a favourite with the queen mum…
March 22nd, 2011 at 3:38 pm
If they invite this Bahraini bloke, they will have a lot of negative press, and if they decide to ‘un-invite’ him, people will ask, perhaps quite innocently, why they have declined to invite him. In a way, they are in a no-win situation. But there are bigger questions begging to be asked here; Regardless of what he has done to his own people, it is obvious in the eyes of some at the top of British society, that he is a royal, so above criticism.
It’s all rank hypocrisy, to be honest. Gaddafi is a ‘self-made’ tyrant, oddball and despot, so, and quite rightly so, he’s fair game. But all the ‘royal’ despots, oh they’re ok, they’re our kind of despots, so we’ll leave them to merrily wreak havoc on their own people and rule anyway they like, oh and if there are any garden parties we can invite them to, we’ll do so, I do hope they like cucumber sandwiches?
March 22nd, 2011 at 7:34 pm
I hope the protesters in the middle east can use the absence of thier “monarchs” attending the wedding to thier advantage.
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Back on the subject of Mountbatten, many republicans may be aware that there is a half-respectable coup-conspiracy theory with Mountbatten at the centre. During the mid 1970s the PM was Harold Wilson, a self-made, grammar school high-achiever and one of the shrewdest PMs this country has ever had. The country was in financial & industrial relations turmoil with problems in N.Ireland dragging on & on. Wilson became convinced right-wing forces and the Army were positioning themselves for a coup and that Mountbatten was to be installed as some military/royal supremo. Now it’s a fact that Wilson did experience early-onset Altzheimers and it could be said this may have influenced his judgement, though his long-standing personal secretary & friend Marcia Williams denies this. Readers might like to web-research the event for themselves. If it is true and Mountbatten was involved, we can be certain he must have approached & informed EW about this in order to get her consent.
March 23rd, 2011 at 2:05 am
@Michael Roberts: see an editor. Great idea for a fantasy/alternative history novel lol.
March 23rd, 2011 at 2:12 am
It seems further comments on ‘Why we have lodged a complaint against Andrew Windsor’ have been closed so apologies for being off-topic but I don’t see how else to ask:
What reply was received? And has a complaint been submitted to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration?
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:27 am
Michael Roberts,
There were TWO separate Mountbatten related coup plottings – one in the late sixties and one in the mid seventies – both against Wilson.
Now while Wilson did experience early-onset Altzheimers as you say – he did retire from office at the young age of 60 before it was very far advanced (in stark contrast to Ronald Reagan).
What Mountbatten discovered is that if you are a royal, then your dangerous follies will be obscured and your reckless disregard for human life will be re-imagined as “heroism” – just to protect the good name of the royal family. As a royal, Mountbatten was deemed too well connected to be hung out to dry. During WWII, the Admiralty privately grumbled about naval commanders who lost more than one ship… but Mountbatten still got to be played by Noel Coward (action hero?) in In Which We Serve.
Likewise Prince Andrew is officially doing a “marvelous job – end of discussion” because whatever royals do has to be backed up to the hilt – or somehow the whole mystique of royalty will be shattered.
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:06 am
With what seems to have been his psychotic vanity and ambition Mountbatten might well have seen himself as the man to head a military coup. If you are a royal your ignorance, stupidity and utter lack of insight inevitably “equips” you for high responsibility devoid of any understanding of your limitations. Surrounded by sycophants of the most slavish kind how could it be otherwise.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Hopefully if these middle-eastern despots come to the wedding expats from thier countries will protest near the Abbey and draw some attention!
March 25th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
There have also been a number of killings in Syria, so that seems to be yet another monarch off the list…..
March 27th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
#bahrain @fredwillie460 I am grateful that you choose to illustrate your article with a picture of a victim of a shotgun blast or rather a fabricated picture of one. An ink dot picture. Ask any pathologist gunsmith huntsman policeman or doctor how close to a gun one would have to be to get such a spread from the buckshot and then just how much collateral damage would be suffered as a consequence. Picture is an obvious fake very much like the rest of the anti government rhetoric coming from opposition groups in Bahrain. It you want as a republican to discredit the Bahrain Royal family get your facts right in the first place and then don’t sink to gutter journalism.