There is something mean spirited about being anti-monarchy

I just read an article in The Times about HM the Queen, who attended, quite without fuss, a West End play, strictly in a private capacity. What appalls me is that some people think it is a waste of time to report this at all. ("Who cares?" wrote one, though, for the life of me, I don't know why he bothered) I don't. It shows that the Royals take an interest in culture and do not in fact, think the world smells of fresh paint.

The Monarchy no longer rules this country but takes an interest in its Government. It costs next to nothing to run and reaps the benefits of being a major tourist attraction. The Monarchy is also a living example of a nation that was once great enough to rule the waves. Attempts at getting rid of it strike me as historical revisionism at its worst.

It is impossible to attribute malign intent to Her Majesty. As far as I know, her life has been spent in service to the nation and the Commonwealth. Her advisors appear to be a lot less partisan or silly than the Government when it comes to handing out honours. Her properties belong to the nation - she can hardly flog them to an Arab, and so to all intents and purposes she is a tenant.

The Port of Leith is now a regenerated bit of Edinburgh, popular with the beautiful people, and now the home of the former Royal Yacht, Britannia. The Yacht was there first, and everything sprung up around it. It is massively popular as a visitor attraction. In it's day it was the height of luxury, though, seeing it now, it is somewhat faded, and by Oligarch standards, distinctly pokey. But it stands as an importan artifact of the Colonial period which some are so keen to sweep under the carpet.

The Royal Family does not run the country. It does, however, remind us of who we once were. And for that, I believe they should remain.


Ed P said...

Yes, the Queen and her generation are great!
Unfortunately, her children are all rather disappointing, especially "the heir to the throne". He's about as mad as Moonbat in fact. As for "his" sons, 'nuf said.
She's a wonderful tourist attraction, undoubtedly bringing in many times the civil list in tourist dollars, but will this continue when she dies? I cannot see many Americans or Japanese (the major "tourist for royalty" nationalities) having the same affection for old jug ears.

Conan the Librarian™ said...

Yup, I'm really mean-spirited.
Every time I think about Jug-ears living a life of freshly scrubbed manservants, Andy getting the RAF to flit him between golf courses and the playboy princes posing as soldiers; well, the meaner I get.

banned said...

I would much rather have as Head Of State someone who is there randomly by accident of birth rather some champion greasy pole climber like Blair or Mandelson.

In extremis the Monarch can still dismiss the government of the day ( as Her Representative did in Australia just 30 or so years ago ) but she/he had best judge the mood of the people correctly or it might be the last move they make.

Cromwell said...

The world would be a fairer and better place without them.
No talent and ignorant yet destined for a life of luxury outwith most people's imagination because they popped out of the right vagina.
The good for tourism thing is a non starter. We don't need a living monarchy to help tourism. Russia, France etc have great Palaces you can stroll around and look in fascination at their wealth and splendour.
The odious multi adulterer Prince Charles being a spokesman on the world stage for Britain takes satire to new levels. He was humping two married mothers while his wife was expecting. And as for speaking on green issues. Purleese ! How many cars and houses and trips around the world does he have ?
Air Miles Andy flying around at our expense. No helicopters for Afghanistan but plenty for that waste of space.
Harry goes to Afghanistan for a photo shoot.
Queenie sitting quiet while we lose our sovereignty to Europe. Right wing press letting it be known that she is ' concerned'. Excellent that will save us. NOT.
Could go on all day but bored.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

They are really not important enough to merit such polarised opinion. Why argue over brown bread and white?

Cromwell said...

Because as long as they are there they legitimise the nepotism and unfairness of society. Peerages for Baron Martin, Uddi, Lord Fondleboy, Jackboot Jackie etc... All at her Majestys' pleasure.
Things will never progress with such a grotesque beast as the monarchy. An indulgent lot who undermine our liberty and scoff at our forelock tugging.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

ER, Cromwell, old chap, all those you mention are political appointees and have nothing whatsoever to do with the monarchy.

Plus, some people are worthier and better than others. Some are scum, some are cream. That's reality. What you call "unfairness in society" is often the fact that people elevate themselves above the hoi-polloi due to hard work and ability and luck.

Cromwell said...

" ER, Cromwell, old chap, all those you mention are political appointees and have nothing whatsoever to do with the monarchy."

Satire is fun but please come back into the real world. If Queenie had told Gordon not to appoint any of these parasites then they wouldn't have been appointed. She wouldn't say it in public but it would be made public if she was ignored.
The only reason that parliament can give their cronies peerages is because we have a monarchy who go along with the pomp and nonsense. The queen opening parliament may just look like fanfare but if she decided not to do it then the whole system would collapse and a new democratic system would have to be set up to replace it.. No monarchy then no peerages. End of story.
Oh and I don't care if the peers are scum or cream. I just want them democratic.