Thursday, 28 May 2015

The Queen & Austerity



Yesterday saw the opening of Parliament, the UK parliament, the one that fiddles their expenses and housing allowances at Westminster.  This is one of those 'pomp and circumstance' days so beloved of tourists and 'Daily Mail' readers.  Here the aged outfits are brought out, the Lords, the Queens speech is always read out by her in the House of Lords, the Lords dress up in borrowed ermine and fill the chamber, ensuring they have signed in to get their £300 a day attendance money.  The parade through parliament, cries of "Hats off strangers" and other obscure aged ceremonial lead up to the Queen sitting on the throne where she is presented with the speech drawn up for her by the fawning smug David Cameron.  It is a wonder royals have not at this point in times past muttered a variety of comments regarding the content therein, it is clear they have not always agreed with them.  One would like to have been at the private meetings with between the queen and the mad Baroness Margaret Thatcher.  She did not exactly despise the woman but clearly indicated she disagreed with her in many ways, slapping her in public was probably going a bit beyond royal protocol however!  
The speech which is read is written on fancy parchment and contains details of all the present governments political chicanery for the coming session.  This wish list sometimes succeeds in turning into law, sometimes it fails.  As she reads it is important to watch how she resists turning up her nose at certain sections of the speech and where she turns with eyebrows raised and looks to the heavens.  This usually indicates a question has arisen in her mind.  The manner in which she spits on her hands and then rubs down her dress after shaking hands with the Prime Minister also indicates something according to royal watchers.  
An interesting picture came my way today.



This got me thinking, while the 'hat' is worth considerably more than the price quoted it has to be remembered that this speech is indeed about 'austerity.'  Chancellor George Osborne has decided to save some billions from the budget, mostly by robbing the poorest, while ignoring the £120 billion dodged tax that his friends take out of the country year by year.  A question then arises as to austerity and royalty.  Whether we require one or ought to be a republic is always an argument that can lead nowhere but as we have a monarchy should they not participate in austerity?  It is understood Charles has plans when he becomes King to reduce greatly the outgoings of the royal house.  This is not it appears going down well within the family.  Millions are spent by the royal house, much on the nations duties, launching ships, meeting dignitaries and hangers on, selling the nation abroad, opening supermarkets and selling programmes at football matches, all well and good for the nations traditions.  However other monarchs have cheaper programmes, less million pound houses and fewer holidays abroad, this Princess Beatrice, whoever she is, has had 15 already this year, could she not get a job at 'Poundland' or something?  Prince William, the next in line after Charles, the one with his mothers brain and a wife to match, he has three houses, each costing the nation millions and all having been done up for him at around three to four million pound a time!  Does he need three homes he does not use?  Interestingly I have just remembered, the staff in royal houses are not well paid, mostly gay, and threatened strike action recently because many were being dumped and thrown out of the house that goes with the job, a very caring employer is the queen!  
If a woman with a million pound hat can talk about austerity on TV I suggest she begins at home putting right her staff situation, selling off needless houses to rich Russians and Chinese who appear to buy anything that moves today as well as line the pockets of the Conservative Party, and then cut down all needless expenditure on that which the nation cannot afford. 
If we have 'food banks' the royals can have less holidays. 

 .

5 comments:

carolincairns said...

15 holidays overseas? Spoiled brat if you ask me.

the fly in the web said...

I'd like to be rid of the monarchy in order to get rid of the prerogative powers used 'on behalf of the Crown' by government.
And I wouldn't mind if the members of the family had to earn a living or face IDS's sanctions.
'Fifteen holidays? Then you'll be keen to get down to some work...'

Lady Di Tn said...

Oh the Royals pale in comparison to our Current President and his whole family. We taxpayers cannot leave our toll as we have to pay for all his and hers holidays. I bet ole Beatrice did not have jets and cars shipped along with all the family and friends. The young man in the first photo is really unhappy in his get up. Peace

Lee said...

Well...regardless of all the out-of-date pomp, circumstance and ceremony I'd rather have Liz sitting there in all her glorious regalia than some idiot ISIL clown dressed in black, with his face covered because he's too much of a coward to show his face!

Adullamite said...

Carol, As a royal what can you do? If you have talent you open a business, some minor royals do this. Working for established companies can be seen as giving them advantages so that is out. If not known for ability, like her dad, then live of the state floating round the world. I might just be able to cope with that.

Fly, I sometime wonder just what royals actually think of their government. I await Charles and his interfering abilities. he will no doubt have words for Cameron that the Eton prefect would not wish to hear.

Lady, How silly you are. The presidents are all the same and security, over the top inefficient security at that, costs most for them. Our large and ever expanding monarchy you can have any day if you wish.

Lee, ISIL will never be in that position however, at least they would be cheaper and there would be full employment, chopping heads off.