Abolish the Monarchy!

October 17, 2012 at 9:46 pm (Civil liberties, democracy, Guardian, Jim D, law, Monarchy, parasites, republicanism, Tory scum)

The government has blocked the publication of 27 letters from Charles Windsor to Labour ministers over a seven month period between September 2004 and April 2005. In doing this, the Attorney-General Dominic Grieve has overturned the decision of three tribunal judges who last month ruled in favour of a freedom of information request from the Guardian. The judges had  ruled that the public had a right to know how Charles had sought to change government policy.

In an extraordianry admission, Grieve argued that releasing the letters “would potentially have undermined [Charles's] position of political neutrality.” The letters, says Grieve, contain the “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” of the heir to the throne and are part of his “preparation for becoming king.”

So much for the myth of a passive, apolitical constitutional monarchy.

We may never know what the “views and beliefs” expressed by Charles in those letters are, but we do know that he holds some profoundly reactionay and downright cranky views on a range of topics from architecture to homeopathy.

The decision to veto the publication of these letters is an affront to democracy; the prospect of an opinionated, political monarch seeking to exert an influence over government policy is an even greater affront.

The would-be Marxist left in Brtitain has, in recent years, tended to down-play the call for the abolition of the Monarchy. At one time that demand, like our insistence upon secularism, was one of the crucial issues that distinguished us from various varieties of reformists and soft-lefties. Now is the time to once again proudly raise the republican banner in Britain.

As for Charles Windsor: he has a perfect right to express his personal opinions if he renounces the throne and becomes a private citizen.

NB: the pressure group Republic has launched a “Royal Secrets Campaign.”

10 Comments

  1. Mike Killingworth said,

    This makes the “Umberto II option” less likely.

    You remember Umberto II. He inherited the Italian throne from his father, Vittorio Emmanuele III in 1946. Given that Papa had played along with Musso, Umberto wisely decided to give his people the choice of a monarchy or a republic. They decided to sack him and he took his pile of dosh into private life.

    • Roger McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy) said,

      Umberto was hardly responsible for the referendum that deposed him – that actually came from De Gasperi’s coalition government which included both the PCI and PSI and had the communist Stalinist Togliatti as deputy prime minister – at best all he did was sign it into law which in the circumstances he was hardly able to refuse.

      IIRC he was still signing and selling off patents of nobility as his plane was waiting on the runway to take him into exile if the referendum went pear-shaped.

      I forget the Italian phrase but he apparently created a whole new class of ‘propeller counts’ in those last hours and lived off the proceeds of the sales for years.

      • Mike Killingworth said,

        Roger, if HRH reads that he’ll definitely be after a referendum.,.

  2. Monsuer Jelly More Bounce to the Ounce (Much More Bounce) said,

    “In the controversy that followed the prince’s remarks, his most staunch defender was professor John Taylor, a scholar whose work I had last noticed when he gave good reviews to the psychokinetic (or whatever) capacities of the Israeli conjuror and fraud Uri Geller. The heir to the throne seems to possess the ability to surround himself—perhaps by some mysterious ultramagnetic force?—with every moon-faced spoon-bender, shrub-flatterer, and water-diviner within range.”
    ― Christopher Hitchens

  3. Monsuer Jelly More Bounce to the Ounce (Much More Bounce) said,

  4. Monsuer Jelly More Bounce to the Ounce (Much More Bounce) said,

    On Prince BIG Ears’s mate who Hitch mentions…”Van der Post was a Jungian mystic and a spiritual adviser to Prince Charles; according to British newspapers, he taught the prince to talk to his plants. In 1982 Charles made him godfather to his heir, Prince William. Van der Post was also a close friend of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, exerting an influence on her policy in South Africa.

    He had a following in the United States as well. For several years, he gave the Advent sermon at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York. The year he died, he attended a celebration of his work in Boulder, Colo., and 4,000 people came.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/03/books/master-storyteller-or-master-deceiver.html

    Of course a ‘Jungian Mystic also means he was probably a fuckking nazi as well.

    • Roger McCarthy (@RF_McCarthy) said,

      While Jung’s relationship with the Nazis indeed deserves close examination you are not being altogether fair on LvdP who as anyone who’s seen Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence knows spent most of WW2 as a starving prisoner being tortured by the Japanese – which to my mind earns him a considerable number of brownie points.

      He really was a twentieth century philosophe with all that implies as regards incurable dilettantism, idealisation of noble savages, distaste for mass modern society, soggy pantheistic deism, a surprisingly high level of comfort with actual despots etc, etc….

      As for his disciple Charles Windsor he is just utterly and irredeemably dim and would fit in very well with the cast of crowned half-wits who ruled Europe at the end of the Ancien Regime and who had similarly mostly been educated by some sort of philosophes but just ended up hopelessly confused – and in fact he must be descended from half of them.

      And I suspect the real reason these letters cannot be released is that they reveal just how imbecilic his opinions are.

  5. Monsuer Jelly More Bounce to the Ounce (Much More Bounce) said,

    What one wants to propose, therefore, is not that we abolish monarchy but that we transcend it or, to put it in more old-fashioned terms, that we grow out of it. To remove the Windsors by the stroke of a legislative pen would be highly satisfying in one way, but disappointing in another. The infantilism and cretinism of the press, for example, can’t be cured just by a fiat. What should now begin is the process of emancipating ourselves from the mental habits of royalism, and the many supports it provides to unthinking attitudes and dysfunctional practices.

    The last-ditchers are right in one way: it would scarcely be progress if we scrapped the Windsors and then prostrated ourselves at the feet of an imperial presidency. But if the argument is rightly conducted then the attitudes required to see us through to a democratic republic – or federation of democratic republics – would be their own insurance. We even begin to think as democratic republicans, and culti vate and reward democratic republican virtues.

    Those who really wanted to would not be prevented from idolising Prince William or from gurgling at the Queen Mum. There will be room for royalists and restorationists in a democratic republic, and there will no doubt be tabloids and glossies to gratify them. But the large and growing number of republicans and democrats will not have to witness this spectacle as if we were all a part of it, and it was all a part of us.

    The private travails of the Windsors would not have – as they now do – the gruesome aspect of a publicly financed human sacrifice. The converse, in other words, does not hold – there is not limitless room for democracy in a monarchy and the sooner we appreciate this, and demand the extra space that an adult and constitutional settlement would require, the better off all of us, including even the monarchists, will be.

    • Christopher Hitchens

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/dec/06/monarchy.features11

  6. Michael Moran said,

    The old jug eared twat can just fuck right off. Why did Labour not make these things public?

  7. Jabez said,

    Indeed Michael, How come Labour toed the royal line? Sycophantic royal arse lickers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 480 other followers

%d bloggers like this: