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. 

 .

Films

.

I came across this somewhere earlier and thought it a good comment on the hype regarding the film. Now I am not one for films, I prefer reality, but the story is indeed a good one. This King, forced by his renegade brother into his important position, fulfilled his duty as he saw it, in spite of his stutter, his embarrassment, and what it was doing to his family. This shy man found himself head of a nation at war, in what was indeed a war to the death! So shy was he that when taken, by force he would say, to North Africa to review the troops, he refused to leave the tent to inspect them through a combination of shyness and inadequacy. Churchill had to order him, his King, to get in a vehicle and be driven along the troops dutifully lining the desert road. That he did not run away like his brother had, that he did not stand under a falling bomb, that he stood up to his duty under such pressure is a story worth telling! No wonder he smoked himself to death! Now I am not one for Kings and Queens but this man took on this onerous and unwanted responsibility and succeeded! His happy family life was interrupted yet his wife, later known as the Queen Mother, stood by him and famously answered the question, 

"Will the Princesses leave London during the Blitz?" 

with "The Princesses will not leave without me, and I won't leave without the King, and the King won't leave!"

 Such an answer along with the bombing of Buckingham Palace gave the royals a place at the centre of British life. They indeed were at the heart of the British Empire for a while. When his daughter Elizabeth took her place on the throne the nation was agog with wonder at a new 'Elizabethan age.' I need not point out that Scotland had not previously had such an age, but you will of course know this. This position in the nations heart remained the case right up till the time Diana and Fergie's selfishness and lack of responsibility brought this to an end. The Queen still lives her life under the influence of her fathers sense of duty, something that has also influenced Prince Charles. The nation however no longer understands this attitude and this is not helped by a media desperate to make money from the behaviour of royal children! Whether this film sticks to the story or not, and I expect the dramatisation will be excessive as always, this Kings is indeed worth investigating and he is worth respecting for his sense of duty and perseverance in such a time as his.

.

The Opening of Parliament and the Queens Speech

Watching this example of 'Pomp & Circumstance' at its best I was becoming very depressed by the time 'Black Rod' entered the House of Commons. The usual, and somewhat tiring, quip from Dennis Skinner (aka 'The Beast of Bolsover') and the laughter from a small group of left leaning 12 year olds around him, the saddening sight of those who lead the United Kingdom parliament, and the despair that whoever the nation votes for we get whoever eventually manages to squeeze over the finish line and take power. Two losers on the government side, smug in their position of power, and one unbalanced woman, rejoicing in her moment of glory as leader of the opposition, today represented power in the United Kingdom. Three sad power hungry losers! 
I am just depressed by this. 


Many rejoice in the compromise coalition government and expect great things, I cannot see how? Those who believe the voting system will change from 'First past the post' to Proportional representation,' will I fear be sadly disappointed. 'Dave' will dump his boyfriend 'Nick' at the first opportunity that comes along. The backbenchers on the Conservative side will push for this at all times, and the Lib-Dem men will demand changes that rile the suits on the right. Sitting alongside his new 'partner' the Prime Minister will watch carefully his enemies on all sides, (and they will be, as always, on all sides of the house), but he will observe especially the weakness of party opposite him as they decide which smug grin will lead them forward. It is to be expected that yet another middle class, 'Saville Row' suited graduate, with no experience of the real world, will by the Autumn become the leader of what will is termed the 'opposition.' Those who can identify differences between the three men are asked to write these on a postcard and inform the rest of the world!


So many love the pomp of such occasions, however absurd much of it appears. There is nothing inherently wrong in this and all nations have their own version of historical pomp. However the power games that lie behind this homage to tradition leave me flat. Michael Portillo has just finished a run of three programmes for Radio 4 questioning what 'Democracy' actually is, how it works and asks if it is working. Well it certainly remains the best of a bad lot of systems but has one sad failing throughout, the human nature that runs it. As the leaders of the parties gathered in the door of the house of Lords to hear the Queen's speech I thought of those many similar men who had stood there, devious, twisted by jealousy and resentment, full of ambition, occasional greed for personal gain, often with an ideology more important than an understanding of what is best for the nation, many different backgrounds but in the end only one aim, to have their own way come what may! Sour as this sounds I am aware many had desires to do what was best and many advances were made which benefited the nation, however it may just be looking at the slimy faces that stood there today that narks. Personal ambition brought about a government built on a desire to grab power, not a desire to improve the world. I feel very uncomfortable about this, and within a year or two it will all be over and a single party, the Conservative Party, will regain power, until then I just wonder........