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?

King, WW2 and Rolls, What else is Required?

 

You will be as delighted as I am to read that Prince Louis will be attending the coronation alongside George and Charlotte. whoever they are.  My heart leapt at this news, didn't yours?  

No?  I am not surprised.  

This is just another 'Daily Mail' story ignoring the real problems in the UK and pandering to royalists everywhere.  Their Tory lies have not convinced anyone so talk about something that distracts the readers is the usual way.  So, the 'Online Mail' fills the top of the page with tripe like this.

A serious point has to be made however.  Charles, they say, (always 'they' whoever 'they' are) wanted a 'cut down' coronation.  So who decided to make it a bog occasion, Holiday, long weekend, pubs open late, and all that?  Surely this was a government desire to blind the population to their faults, if indeed they are still in office come the day.

Surely if the monarch wishes to be popular he would avoid spending millions on an event in times of cost-cutting?  Surely he would be avoiding large gatherings and seek a cheap coronation?  Now, after fifty years awaiting his enthronement I can understand Charles wishes to have his big day, but consider the effects on the public.  

In Scotland support for the monarchy is falling, 36% were in favour, if I remember the last poll correctly, 45% against.  So a third of the country is for a monarch, mostly Tories and Rangers fans, and an ever growing number wish to lose royalty.  This in a nation where the monarch was known to wander the pathways around Balmoral freely, accompanied only by a security man and rarely recognised, and usually ignored by the public.  A friend of mine walking there one day met Camilla and her guard wandering the hills.  They chatted amiably and went on.  This ought to continue whatever the decision, but for Charles to ignore, or not be made aware of the publics view is a mistake.  

There is also the question of the Stone of Scone (pronounced 'Scoon') now kept in Edinburgh Castle.  On this stone the King of Scots is crowned, and until now it has been placed under the coronation chair in Westminster Abbey.  Stolen by Edward I the brutal imperialist English king in 1296 during one of his failed invasions, and removed to London where it was imprisoned until returned by a desperate London government seeking to stop Scottish Nationalism in 1996.  That failed.  The question now is, ought the stone to remain in Edinburgh?  Should Charles be forced to come to Scone Abbey and be crowned 'King of Scots' there?  I wonder if the new First Minister has the guts to ask this question?

I doubt it.

You can tell it is a Saturday simply by looking at the 'Online Mail.'  Every Saturday without fail we find a Second World War story, this time one featuring Plaszow Concentration Camp, an unruly, lawless place, even by Nazi standards.  This story tells us off a violent man who allowed the power to go to his head, and the survivor who sought him out after the war and had him brought to justice.

Now the tale is not pretty, but the tale is not important.  What is important is to remind the reader that 'They are British,' and that 'We won the war,' and allow them to sink into the Brexit dream of imperialist greatness that would make Edward I jealous.  The facts of the war matter not, most of the readers were not born during the war, it is the 'British Flag Waving' that counts.  As indeed does the coronation story at the top of the 'Mail Online' page.  

Journalism, who needs it? 

There has been a bit off a hoo-hah in the press because a Glasgow company, 'Morton's Bakers,' has ceased to exist.  This Bakers has become famous in the west of Scotland for providing the morning roll so beloved by Scots, especially on a Sunday morning!   While this is sad news for Glaswegians it kind of surprised me as in Edinburgh it was more normal on Sunday mornings to walk to the local bakers shop for rolls and then gather the newspapers from the nearby newsagent.  It is to be hoped the clever people in the house already had bacon, eggs or square sausage available for the rolls, or there would be trouble!  As far as I know this is still normal procedure for many.  Huge bakeries may supply rolls to supermarkets and large shops, but the rolls from the local baker are always the best in the world.  All over Scotland small bakers can be found hard at work at a Saturday midnight as they prepare the requirements for the morning.  In times past, when I was walking home, too late for a bus, to cheap for a taxi, I often made my way through Stockbridge.  Just after passing Royal Circus on the right hand side were a row of shops.  Amongst them there was a small bakers shop hard at work, and on a quiet, late summer night the fragrance of the bakers work filled the air all around.  Marvellous!  I remain unconvinced such wee bakers can survive with large supermarkets around but surely many do.  There is nothing better than entering such a shop, being served by a 16 year old (if that) on her first job, possibly buying a 'snowball' or two, and maybe a couple of 'Fly Cemeteries' for later.  Now, we have a large 'Greggs' in this town but there is no way I would buy in that shop (I use Tesco) if there was a suitable bakers nearby.  Sadly this area does not possess one such wee baker.

However, for the hungry, I have found a suitable recipe for those able and willing to learn how to eat properly.  Scottish Scran  Go read and learn how to eat properly!

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.

Remembrance 2020, Royals,

Because of the virus a shortened Remembrance event was held today at the War Memorial.  Around 20 or so people attended.  One man led, the piper played, the trumpeter offered the last post and we stood in silence.  Short but respectful, as you would expect.  The several hundred that would normally appear at the Sunday service may well have stood for the two minutes silence in shops, streets or elsewhere today. 

 

 

One wreath was laid today, added to those laid unofficially on Sunday.  This came from a local school who attend each year.  The children, heads bowed and respectful, always add something to such occasions.  I suspect these will know more about the Great War than the many educated via the 'Daily Express' and 'Daily Mail.'  

 

Quietly and respectfully the people dispersed, an occasional ex-serviceman was spotted, army cap and medals showing, and the people drifted away, on with their business.

 

My business took me to Tesco for bread and circus's, hold on, bread and wine, the last being something I forgot.  Plenty of soap however, the girl wondered if I was panic buying or just filthy?  Considering my garb I would have thought the answer obvious myself.

Back home, cleaned up, having posted the pictures on the memorial I rest.  My knees ache from standing around and walking, my head aches from Google Sites new system.  The old system was easy to operate, even if it had limitations.  The new one is not easy, things disappear, squares come and go, understanding what to do when items suddenly shrink or enlarge is not clear, questions are then asked as to the mentality of the geek who originated the blasted thing, and as my views were posted to them several times in the past I could not be bothered passing on my compliments today.  Eventually the two war memorial sites went up, this deserved lunch!

 

Standard

 

I see the royals are making the most of the date.  Kate is pictured chatting to war widows online, though the 'Standard' just notes the blouse costs £79!  I could buy two suits for that!  As she chats secretly in front of the photographers her husband is talking secretly to troops serving around the world.

Now normally this would be part and parcel of being royal, today it is part of the 'Buck House' way of indicating to Harry and Meghan they are 'out of order.'  Willie and Kate always get good press, and that is never something to put your trust in, Harry and Meghan always get a bad press.  The media love this, the royal fan, and there is lots of them, enjoys the soap opera that lives of the nations tax, and this might be the only way some media survive!  Harry and Meghan did visit a war memorial, this is called a 'photo op' by the press, Kate and William's contact however is called 'caring.'  

Do you, like me, have other words for this?

 

Mercury News

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. 
 

.