You know something is wrong when TCW Defending Freedom (until recently The Conservative Woman) runs a piece that is not only critical of the Royal Family but also questions whether it is time Britain became a republic. Yes, there is definitely something wrong in the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I remain a Royalist. But I am no longer such a fan as I used to be of the particular dynasty from which our constitutional head of state emerges periodically; last time over sixty years ago. If the Monarchy persists, the British people will not have to tolerate the next incumbent for too long. He may do the decent thing either through demise or bypass primogeniture and hand the throne to his oldest son. This is what many want, living under the delusion that we have had a living saint on the throne in the form of Queen Elizabeth II, that Her son is a proper Charlie, and that Prince William is emerging as a decent chap and a safe pair of hands, ably assisted by his consort and commoner, the Princess formerly known as Kate Middleton but referred to as the Duchess of Cambridge.
Her Majesty has mainly kept Her Royal trap shut on social and political issues for the vast majority of Her reign. But age, the loss of Her husband and the proximity of the end of Her reign—which will probably be coterminous with the end of Her life—have led to some verbal incontinence. She has allowed Herself to be recruited to the pro-Covid vaccine campaign and even spoken about the selfishness of those not taking the vaccine. She was recorded expressing Her irritation with world leaders—then due to meet at the COP26 in Glasgow—about being all talk and no action. She then got on message in Her virtual address asking global leaders to ‘act now for our children’ on climate change. Since when was our Sovereign required to do other than welcome and wish luck? Now She has aligned Herself with some of the most dubious characters in the world with no apparent understanding of what aiming for a net zero carbon economy would inflict on the neediest of Her subjects.
My Royalist credentials were eroded recently as I read …And what do You Do? a searing criticism, person-by-person, of the British Monarchy by Norman Baker. We live under the illusion that The Queen has no power, acting purely in a constitutional manner, rubber stamping government legislation, spouting nebulous nonsense from The Throne at the Opening of Parliament, handing out gongs and opening buildings. We are well aware of how well briefed She is politically and of how in charge of Her political brief She is. But, in contrast to The Queen being some powerless, yet privileged, figurehead of state, She in fact wields enormous power. And a great deal of that power is wielded by silence rather than by proclamation and is largely and effectively operated through the good offices of Her Privy Council. The proceedings of The Privy Council are confidential but Norman Baker, as a former MP and Minister of State was a Privy Councillor. He describes in detail what it means to be a member and in an appendix to his book describes the induction ceremony and the Privy Council oath. In this he is mainly poking fun at these outdated practices which, at one level, could be seen simply as a bit of fun. But it is what comes under scrutiny by the Privy Council that is of concern, and it appears from …And what do You Do? that Her Majesty holds considerable sway over any matters that concern Her or Her family. In other words, Her lands and properties. In a word Her wealth. In two words, Her immense wealth. I urge people to read this book from which it is clear that such decisions are always to the advantage of The Queen and Her extremely extended family and never to the advantage of the British people who are largely responsible for providing and maintaining that wealth.
Norman Baker’s book must be interpreted in the light that the Royal Family is viewed by him through a rabidly anti-monarchist lens. Something that becomes increasingly clear towards the end of the book. But otherwise, it is meticulously researched and exemplified, and it is not the wealth of the Royal Family per se that shocks as much as their sheer neediness, sense of entitlement and almost absolute refusal to put their hands in their own pockets when it comes to paying for anything including transport, holidays, properties and their generally pampered lifestyle. God knows they could. And they continue—to their taxpayers—to be the most expensive Royal Family in Europe.
Charles purportedly aims to slim down the Royal Family as he ascends to The Throne. He proposes that it be less extended and, by implication, that less is spent on it. But it is hard to reconcile this with the evidence in Norman Baker’s book that he is one of the greediest and most acquisitive of them all. Any savings on the extended family will undoubtedly be used to buoy up his own expense account. He pays for nothing, expects the best treatment, travels with an enormous retinue and even transports whole bedrooms around the country. He denies, however, rumours that he always travels with his own toilet seat. Norman Baker also recounts how Prince William is already inured to scrounging what he can such as luxury holidays in exotic locations for him and Kate. This is not an indication that anything is going to get better any time soon. He has also bought into the climate change agenda, establishing the Earthshot Prize and regularly exposes his young children to the outpourings of the leading Prophet of Doom, Sir David Attenborough.
I reckon, without some radical action, the Succession of Selfishness will simply continue into future generations. Governments of both shades respond positively to requests to increase the Civil List. They collectively and repeatedly doff their caps and dips their hands into our pockets to support The Monarchy. It is unimaginable that the Royal Family is capable of reforming itself. And the signs are increasing that if they do not do so—and radically—then they will never have the opportunity. There is clearly a case for government action on reform of The Monarchy if the will even remains to maintain an inherited and unelected head of state. I have no care for how much personal wealth they hold or whether they are taxed on it. They can continue to hand out medals and honours; someone must do it. And they can fly the world in luxury and holiday in splendour. But at their own expense. What was once unknown and thereby tolerated is now decreasingly so.
I, for one, would like The Monarchy to remain. My reasons are not original. I look at the United States and France and seriously question whether anyone really wants to replace what we have—constitutionally—with that. For a start, who would run? Does anyone like the prospect of a President Blair? Our system, traditionally, did not elect political leaders at any level of government until the turn of the century when London started electing a mayor. To date we have had IRA sympathiser Red Ken Livingstone, the bouffant buffoon Boris Johnson, currently running the country into the ground and finally Sadiq Khan. Need I say more?
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
