The King Above the Law

 

I have for a while wondered about the monarchy.  

We were all brought up to understand the monarch represented the nation, we stood to attention in the classroom in the morning, saluted the flag if I remember right.  At Cub Scouts we did the same, flag flown, 'dib dib dib' to you mate! The map showed all the bits 'we' owned, it was ours, and we were proud.

By the time we reached secondary school we cared a lot less for monarchs.  By 16 I was with the SNP pushing leaflets through doors, the monarch may have been a 'nice old lady' but was afar off.  

Today all has changed.

Since Charles was forced to marry a dim lassie to create an heir, and her friend Fergie hanging on to Andrew, both without respect for responsibilities or duty, the monarchy has seen much loss. 

Now I can understand the stifling rigidity of the lifestyle can be a killer if you are not bro.  Especially if you are harassed by the cretins of the press constantly, but it is clear the sense of duty, real or proclaimed, that arose before and during the war has been lost with the next generation. 

The old queen is dead, Harry has gone off, Willy has his mum's brain, and both have wives who run the show.  The list of other royal benefit scroungers is a long one.

In Scotland of course an increasing, but not always thinking, majority wish for a republic.  In England many still see the monarch as representing the dead empire and their only reason for pride, so they keep a hold on a flag waving mentality.  An even less 'thinking' response than in Scotland.  

Today I read of the monarchs intrusion into law making, and intrusion extended even into the Scots and Welsh parliaments.

There is a convention that allows the monarch to be informed of any law that affects them.  They can then refuse to sign any law they disagree with.  Now this does not concern things of great merit, this concerns laws which affect their estates.  For instance, a wildlife crime on a Balmoral estate cannot be investigated by the police without royal permission!  Laws concerning animal and workers rights have been amended to suit the monarch.  The beloved queen in her 70 year reign consulted 1000 bills before signing them, we do not know if any were amended to suit her.  Her sweet nature appearance hid a determined woman who sought to get her own way at all times.  Charles himself has already noted around 20 Laws that affect him and his estates.  What changes were made, how is the monarch protected from legal action, how come the King is above the Law?

In the USA a madman pretending to be president has led a coup against the state. The response, eventually, means he has been charged with many offences and the courts are taking action.  In the UK, a monarch breaking the Law can avoid police action, because he says so!  Clearly this is unacceptable, though it has been a continuous aspect of Law since way back when.  It is time for a change.

I disagree that anyone should be above the Law, King or commoner.  A king who demands more money during a cost of living crisis time is not being responsible for his people, his sense of duty has wavered.  With two dim sons (why has Harry got red hair?) an eejit brother, and many hangers on to care for I say it is time to dump the monarch, certainly in Scotland, and make them pay accordingly for the vast estates in the country they control.  

Referendum anyone?

A Wander

Yesterday morning, enticed out by a bright sun and deep blue sky, and also reduced prices for old men on Tuesdays, I wandered around to the 'Esquire Barber Shop' for a haircut.  A short prayer to ensure there were no queues succeeded, and one of the three busy lassies were soon tidying up the mess above my head. 

Leaving behind enough gray hair to make a 'Dulux Dog' I wandered about our ancient city contemplating the history, the coffee bars and the women.  The history we know, the coffee bars too dear, the women ignored me.  I wondered how many knew that on that side of the road a Roman complex of some sort once existed.  Could they imagine the Saxon Roundhouses down near the traffic lights?  Did the realise that the High Street did not exist until probably the late 1200s when it was erected to ease the Bishop of London and his men on the way to their chapel along the road?   I suspect few contemplated such things.  

St Michaels has  stood here in one form or another for well over 800 years.  Possibly a Saxon church was built before that, certainly Roman graves have been discovered near the spot.  The Romans were dead by the way.  At the rear is an alcove, if that's the word, where pilgrims passing by on their way to Bury St Edmunds to visit the dead saint would stop to worship.  Quite what stood there I know not, possibly a priest would allow them to congregate at certain times.  This ended with the Reformation, it was in a all the papers, and the pilgrims ceased passing by.

A gargoyle to remove excess water?  I wonder if he was modelled on one of the main men of the time?

There are a few werewolves around here I can tell you.

Some towns do not appear to have much history in themselves but the people who have lived there often do.  Notley Road, which leads you may guess to Notley, saw many men go off into the Great War, not all returned.  Percy Lanham from No 29 died of wounds at St Omer, way behind the lines, and was buried there.  His service was with the Army Service Corps, the people taking horse and cart full to ammunition and other supplies to the front.  It is likely a shell brought him down, though in war anything can happen.

Just a wee but further down the road, passed what once was the 'Angel' Pub on the other side of the street once stood a house of a famous name.  A man named Martin Kellogg lived there on Godlings Farm until he took off for the USA in the 1600s.  Possibly they were non-conformists and thought New England would be a free place to live.  Among the descendants of the Kellogg's 8 or 9 generations down, we find John Wayne and Clint Eastwood have connections.  Whoever they are.  The one we all know however, is William Keith Kellogg, a Seventh Day Adventist, like his family at the time.  He joined his brother John at his sanitorium, run on healthy vegetarian lines, until, after some problems, beginning what we now know as 'Kellogg's Corn Flakes.'  

This cereal was supposed to trap the sun in the corn and pass on the health benefits to the people.  You may question this, I find the packet tastes better myself.  Still, William was born in 1860 and died in 1951, so his health was good for a long time.

All this beginning, amongst much else, in Braintree!

One item noticed most days and not completely taken in is the pillar box.  A system for collecting stamped mail designed by William Trollope the novelist.  He was in charge of the Post Office in Ireland.  He did not get on with Rowland Hill, the top man who had developed the 'Penny Post,' but top men do not get on with one another often, do they?  Trollope travelled constantly and wrote many of his books while on the train.  As even today writing is not always easy on a moving train I wonder how he managed so well?  His books are very thick, this is because the 'Lending Library' charged money on each lend, and two volumes were not advantages to the shop.  Books to be used by the library, the best Victorian way to be seen, had therefore to come in three volumes or were rejected.  Trollope was not the only writer to grumble at this.

The box bears the letter 'GR,' indicating the box was built in the reign of King George.  He reigned from 1910 - 1936, and is not to be confused with King George VI who reigned from 1936-1952.  His stylised GR includes a VI above the letters.   We await the introduction of  King Charlies Post boxes.  I wonder what they will do re the ones in Scotland?    

In Scotland boxes did not have 'EiiR' as Scotland did not have a 'Queen Elizabeth' before 1952.  The Crown was used instead.  This is because many complained, and Westminster ignored them, until a box in Craigmillar was removed by a wee stick of Gelignite.  The PM at the time, Churchill, decided 'something must be done.' 

Royal Bumf Again

Another day, another pretend outrage about the BBC.

The press is filled with this mock attack on the Beeb.  How the royals are hurt, how Diana was deceived, how bad was Bashir?  Each London based paper is full of this guff.

'William the Dim' tells us BBC lies ruined her life, nothing about marrying an older thoughtful man when she had the brains of a chicken then?   Diana's flirting with the press that used her for cash never hurt her?  Diana's use of other men did not hurt?  Just the BBC Willie, just the BBC?  William of course may just be following orders.

'Harry the Dimmer' claims a 'toxic culture' led to her death, not a gang of paparatzzi following her everywhere on motorbikes and cars then?  It was not the press demanding pictures and stories, it was not the women reading this guff and living their broken lives through her that hurt, just 'toxic culture,' a culture she tried to make use of but did not have the brains to control?  Really, I think he must have a word with his scriptwriter.

What we have here is a small story magnified out of all proportion so Boris and his mob can attack the BBC.  Already there is talk of 'change' being demanded (by whom?) and with Tory control of the BBC meaning no questions on the Boris gang are allowed it appears we shall see an end to the BBC as we have known it soon.

How many of Boris's viewers will notice?

The future of the monarchy is in doubt.  Charles will not last more than 20 years when he takes over, William has all the qualities required for statehood as King, no deep thought, a wife to parade in the press, and no questions asked.  The future is bright, the future King is not.    

Today Boris has commented on the BBC 'Journalistic standards' by saying he is 'concerned' about them. This is Boris, the man who lied about the EU and anything else for 30 years and was sacked twice for lying now 'concerned' about BBC standards?  The whole Bashir thing is being used to clamp down on the BBC and journalistic investigation of Boris, nothing else.

Clem the Man!

I came across a lot of photos of Clem today and wondered at the difference between this rich man who spent his life helping the poorest and the rich of today who spend their lives getting richer.  This man was Prime Minister and had few real enemies bar the opposition and those who wished to take his place.  However he was always too good to be removed, I think he had 24 'coups' against him all of which failed.  The comparison between this man and what is available in the House today is a wonder not to be missed.
Here are some of his quotes...

"We have absolutely abandoned any idea of nationalist loyalty. We are deliberately putting a world order before our loyalty to our own country."
"The Old School Tie can still be seen on the Government benches."
"If you begin to consider yourself solely responsible to a political party, you're half-way to a dictatorship."
"Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking."
"I just love Chinese food. My favourite dish is number 27."
"A period of silence on your part would be appreciated."
"Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress."
"In a life and death struggle, we cannot afford to leave our destinies in the hands of failures.
"Winston Churchill - fifty per cent genius, fifty per cent bloody fool. "
"No social system will bring us happiness, health and prosperity unless it is inspired by something greater than materialism."

It would be easy to insert many of these quotes into today's parliament situation. 

Attlee understood how successful he had been when he penned this...

"There were few who thought him a starter,
Many who thought themselves smarter.
But he ended PM
CH and OM,
an Earl and a Knight of the Garter.

 

Time to switch of the news as yet another royal benefit scrounger has arrived on the planet.  This one with a mother with 'modern' ideas.  For 'modern' read 'daft.'  For days the Brexit discussions will be hidden behind the papers gushing puke that follows such births.  Therefore Theresa will be sending out changes here and there behind the baby's back, look out for it.

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. 

 .

QE2

There are three ideas about the monarchy.  One is the total opposition, based on democratic equality or just spiteful jealousy.  Hard line anti monarchists usually don't think through their opinions and just whine about 'cap doffing,' and 'rich snobs.'  They certainly have a point, and several members of the royal party (yes Andrew I mean you!) could be eliminated without any fuss.  On the other hand there are many monarchists out there. Some with memories of the royal family's attitudes during the war, and the PR was excellent at that time.  During the blitz the queen was asked if the young girls would leave London. "They won't leave without me, and I won't leave without the King, and the King won't leave," came the reply.  For the populace that was what they wished to hear at the time, and that impression remained for years, following on as it did the previous King's resignation for an American gold digger.  Today thousands, mostly women, identify with Diana, another self publicist, and fill their homes with union flags (calling them Union jacks although those are only flown on ships) pictures of royalty, and always at the forefront at street parties and flag waving occasions.  The majority are somewhere in the middle.  Like me they enjoy such pageants, the boats, the crowds having a laugh, the attention seekers, and especially the stories which accompanied the boats yesterday.  We don't support a monarchy and worry about a republic.  A head of state like this queen costs far too much, but a president would have political influence, would probably be a Tony Blair type, and would fail to bring in tourists.  In fact that would have several bad effects all round!  Yesterdays expensive parade was a laugh, except for the drivel offered by the BBC presenters.  "Amazing, fabulous, beautiful, brilliant" they repeated over and over and over, instead of giving something sensible.  My favourite was when some bint came on to discuss the outfits, i had ti turn the sound off then but not before the BBC suit had used the phrase "The queen is like a pearl," at which point I vomited.  Quite what she or Phillip would have said at that point I would not wish to hear.


I find these things hard to take when Union flags are flying.  My inner revulsion at a flag used by England, for England, by a nation that considers the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,' to be no more than :Greater Englandshire' somewhat repulsive.  I note that at no time did the well trained broadcasters use the phrase 'Queen of England' as so many foreign johnnies do. and complimented them on their fear of a Scots backlash.  My e-mails do make a difference.  I also found the desire of the cheerleaders to encourage the fans to cheer at every opportunity tiring. We know the soggy royalists wanted to let of steam but this was embarrassing.   Not quite as bad as the painters outside Tate Modern, the home of daft art, attempting in the rain to paint the queen as she passed by at 4 mph.  Still it's only a bit of a show, a bit of a laugh.  A time for the kids to have a memory, a time to bring people together, a time to sell Jubilee Mugs and tat. An inoffensive occasion, enlivened by around 80 wet protesters (hundreds the 'Morning Star' claimed which surprised me as I thought the 'Morning Star' died 20 years ago) whining about anti- monarchy, and few noticing.


The UK has a love hate relationship with the monarchy.  The press reflect what matters by surrounding the queen with pictures of Kate and Pippa, this time neither showing tits or bum first, and fussing more about these girls than the occasion.  A great number still want a royal family, the reasons why are many, usually not thought out, and it will take a major mistake or thirty years before any revolution takes place in the UK regarding them.  Of course by then Scotland will be independent, and much less concerned with all this.


It is hard writing early in the morning while stuffing cheese on toast down the gullet.  No wonder this is a mish mash worse than usual!  never mind, I'll get the butler to fix it later. 
 

.