Showing posts with label royal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label royal. Show all posts
Sunday, 14 March 2021
Friday, 18 May 2018
Forget the Markles – who in their right mind would want to marry into the royal family?
Mark Steele in The Independent
Oooo it’s so exciting, the great day is nearly here! For weeks the news has been full of stories such as “Residents at a nursing home in Keswick have joined in the celebrations by selling all their hearing aids and dialysis machines so they can afford the ingredients to make a giant apple crumble in the shape of Harry and Meghan”.
Kay Burley will tell us on Sky News: “You can see as you look around Windsor, even the flies are buzzing with a joyful air. The worms in the park are giving off a distinct glow this morning – they know this is a very special day indeed.”
Then Nicholas Witchell will report: “Prince Louis, one month old, is said to be ‘extremely thrilled’ about the wedding, and the palace has confirmed his poos have been especially runny the last couple of days in anticipation of the wonderful day.”
Every single broadcast of anything will be in honour of events at Windsor. The shipping forecast will go: “Finisterre, gale force 7, rising to 8, waves cascading like Meghan’s beautiful dress, undulating with magisterial glory. Hurricane later.”
Porn channels will mark the occasion by showing films in which the participants grunt the top 100 people in line to the throne during the action, timing the climax to coincide with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
One typical story was a report from Reuters that “a bakery in the picturesque town of Windsor, where Britain’s sixth in line to the throne will marry his American fiancée on Saturday, is serving up cappuccino and latte coffees topped with a frothy portrait of the couple”.
It’s delightful how many businesses have joined in the celebrations in this way, so you see adverts such as: “Celebrate the joy of the royal wedding by buying a commemorative garden fork from Homebase. What better way to be reminded of this magical day, than to be jolted back to that perfect moment every time you turn over the soil in your garden?”
Maybe Windsor’s drug dealers can produce a royal wedding special edition skunk that gets you so out of your tree you imagine you’re Princess Caroline of Brunswick.
In a charming gesture, the homeless of Windsor are being moved out of their usual shop doorways for the occasion, and you can’t help imagining the joy of being homeless in Windsor and hearing the local authority tell you: “I’m afraid there aren’t any empty rooms in Windsor at the moment. There’s a dreadful shortage of property round here.”
But this royal wedding has attained a special feature, because it turns out the Markle family haven’t all behaved in the idyllic way we might expect. Luckily, our newspapers have reacted calmly, and soothed the situation with headlines such as “WEDDING CRISIS, FRUITBAT DAD RUINS EVERYTHING, WAR NOW CERTAIN”.
One Daily Mail columnist informed us Thomas Markle “seems to live off chicken tacos and six-packs of beer”. The evidence for this is he was photographed coming out of a shop holding a plastic bag. So you can understand the concern, because anyone who has ever come out of a shop with a plastic bag was clearly carrying something in that bag, so the most likely products were chicken tacos and a six-pack of beer, which they live on, exclusive to any other items.
Thomas Markle, like Meghan herself, has been divorced, and it is a dreadful worry that a dysfunctional family is being blended into a normal harmonious one.
This is why I’m sure newspapers will announce the Markles are “extremely concerned” about the family that Megan’s marrying into. And they’re “especially perturbed” that a prominent place in the ceremony has been given to Harry’s father, who demands someone runs his bath for him and insisted on dragging his mistress around with him throughout his first marriage. So maybe it’s for the best if he doesn’t go.
Instead many British newspapers are furious with Thomas Markle, and you can understand why, as they can’t bear anyone who might exploit this glorious occasion just to make some extra sales.
The behaviour of Megan’s dad must be particularly upsetting for the Windsors, as they’ve never taken the slightest interest in preserving their wealth, affecting a happy-go-lucky air, whose motto is “what’s mine is yours”.
Thomas Markle is also accused of using a royal marriage to attract publicity, and no one has ever stooped this low before. For example, Pippa Middleton’s column in Vanity Fair is nothing to do with the fact she’s Kate’s sister – she got the job because of her incisive analysis of the Japanese economy.
But to maintain the glory, we have to promote the idea these characters are special. They weren’t just born into a certain line – they’re in place through merit. The Queen is the monarch because she toiled so hard, starting out as a humble princess and working her way up.
Then we get the tales of how wonderful they are, so politicians give us snippets such as: “Did you know Her Majesty is a marvellous snooker player? Her safety play is simply marvellous.”
Then there’s calamity and disbelief if it turns out they’re like any other family, full of flaws and chaos, except even worse because they’re supposed to be divine. Maybe this is the trouble with royalists; they can’t stand the royal family. If they really cared for them, they’d be like the 52 per cent of the country who say they’re not interested in the wedding, and leave them alone to get married in Windsor Town Hall, with a reception above a gastropub where Thomas Markle could make a hilarious embarrassing speech, and present a buffet of chicken tacos and unlimited six-packs of beer.
Oooo it’s so exciting, the great day is nearly here! For weeks the news has been full of stories such as “Residents at a nursing home in Keswick have joined in the celebrations by selling all their hearing aids and dialysis machines so they can afford the ingredients to make a giant apple crumble in the shape of Harry and Meghan”.
Kay Burley will tell us on Sky News: “You can see as you look around Windsor, even the flies are buzzing with a joyful air. The worms in the park are giving off a distinct glow this morning – they know this is a very special day indeed.”
Then Nicholas Witchell will report: “Prince Louis, one month old, is said to be ‘extremely thrilled’ about the wedding, and the palace has confirmed his poos have been especially runny the last couple of days in anticipation of the wonderful day.”
Every single broadcast of anything will be in honour of events at Windsor. The shipping forecast will go: “Finisterre, gale force 7, rising to 8, waves cascading like Meghan’s beautiful dress, undulating with magisterial glory. Hurricane later.”
Porn channels will mark the occasion by showing films in which the participants grunt the top 100 people in line to the throne during the action, timing the climax to coincide with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
One typical story was a report from Reuters that “a bakery in the picturesque town of Windsor, where Britain’s sixth in line to the throne will marry his American fiancée on Saturday, is serving up cappuccino and latte coffees topped with a frothy portrait of the couple”.
It’s delightful how many businesses have joined in the celebrations in this way, so you see adverts such as: “Celebrate the joy of the royal wedding by buying a commemorative garden fork from Homebase. What better way to be reminded of this magical day, than to be jolted back to that perfect moment every time you turn over the soil in your garden?”
Maybe Windsor’s drug dealers can produce a royal wedding special edition skunk that gets you so out of your tree you imagine you’re Princess Caroline of Brunswick.
In a charming gesture, the homeless of Windsor are being moved out of their usual shop doorways for the occasion, and you can’t help imagining the joy of being homeless in Windsor and hearing the local authority tell you: “I’m afraid there aren’t any empty rooms in Windsor at the moment. There’s a dreadful shortage of property round here.”
But this royal wedding has attained a special feature, because it turns out the Markle family haven’t all behaved in the idyllic way we might expect. Luckily, our newspapers have reacted calmly, and soothed the situation with headlines such as “WEDDING CRISIS, FRUITBAT DAD RUINS EVERYTHING, WAR NOW CERTAIN”.
One Daily Mail columnist informed us Thomas Markle “seems to live off chicken tacos and six-packs of beer”. The evidence for this is he was photographed coming out of a shop holding a plastic bag. So you can understand the concern, because anyone who has ever come out of a shop with a plastic bag was clearly carrying something in that bag, so the most likely products were chicken tacos and a six-pack of beer, which they live on, exclusive to any other items.
Thomas Markle, like Meghan herself, has been divorced, and it is a dreadful worry that a dysfunctional family is being blended into a normal harmonious one.
This is why I’m sure newspapers will announce the Markles are “extremely concerned” about the family that Megan’s marrying into. And they’re “especially perturbed” that a prominent place in the ceremony has been given to Harry’s father, who demands someone runs his bath for him and insisted on dragging his mistress around with him throughout his first marriage. So maybe it’s for the best if he doesn’t go.
Instead many British newspapers are furious with Thomas Markle, and you can understand why, as they can’t bear anyone who might exploit this glorious occasion just to make some extra sales.
The behaviour of Megan’s dad must be particularly upsetting for the Windsors, as they’ve never taken the slightest interest in preserving their wealth, affecting a happy-go-lucky air, whose motto is “what’s mine is yours”.
Thomas Markle is also accused of using a royal marriage to attract publicity, and no one has ever stooped this low before. For example, Pippa Middleton’s column in Vanity Fair is nothing to do with the fact she’s Kate’s sister – she got the job because of her incisive analysis of the Japanese economy.
But to maintain the glory, we have to promote the idea these characters are special. They weren’t just born into a certain line – they’re in place through merit. The Queen is the monarch because she toiled so hard, starting out as a humble princess and working her way up.
Then we get the tales of how wonderful they are, so politicians give us snippets such as: “Did you know Her Majesty is a marvellous snooker player? Her safety play is simply marvellous.”
Then there’s calamity and disbelief if it turns out they’re like any other family, full of flaws and chaos, except even worse because they’re supposed to be divine. Maybe this is the trouble with royalists; they can’t stand the royal family. If they really cared for them, they’d be like the 52 per cent of the country who say they’re not interested in the wedding, and leave them alone to get married in Windsor Town Hall, with a reception above a gastropub where Thomas Markle could make a hilarious embarrassing speech, and present a buffet of chicken tacos and unlimited six-packs of beer.
Wednesday, 18 February 2015
Thai Politics
Tariq Ali in conversation with journalist and author, Andrew MacGregor Marshall, on Thailand's biggest taboo: It's monarchy. Marshall is the author of "A Kindom in crisis" and he's prosecuted in the country for this publication. The two experts discuss the power struggle and transition in Thailand, the last coup, the regime's repression and Thai society's resistance.
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
Ministers accused of exploiting royal veto to block embarrassing legislation
Bills on Iraq, Rhodesia and hereditary titles were blocked by Queen - on advice of ministers who had political objections
Tam Dalyell, the
sponsor of a 1999 bill that aimed to give MPs a vote on military action
against Saddam Hussein, said he is 'incandescent and angry' that it was
blocked by the Queen under apparent influence from Tony Blair’s
government. Photograph: Murdo Macleod
Government ministers have exploited the royal family's secretive
power to veto new laws as a way to quell politically embarrassing
backbench rebellions, it was claimed on Tuesday.
Tam Dalyell, the sponsor of a 1999 parliamentary bill that aimed to give MPs a vote on military action against Saddam Hussein, said he is "incandescent and angry" that it was blocked by the Queen under apparent influence from Tony Blair's government. It also emerged that Harold Wilson used the Queen's power to kill off politically embarrassing bills about Zimbabwe and peerages.
MPs and republicans have complained the little-known power to veto or consent to new legislation grants the Queen and Prince Charles unwarranted powers and is undemocratic. Detail about its application is only now emerging as a result of a freedom of information campaign by a legal scholar, and the Guardian revealed on Monday at least 39 different laws have been subject to the secretive royal consent arrangement.
Dalyall's military actions against Iraq bill would have given parliament sole authority to sanction strikes on Iraq, and he alleged Blair's government told Buckingham Palace the Queen should withhold her consent. The bill was introduced a month after the US and UK operation Desert Fox air strikes against Iraq.
"The issue as far as I am concerned is that Buckingham Palace was used by Downing Street," said Dalyell. "I don't blame the palace … this was entirely the handiwork of Downing Street. It was about snuffing out a measure they feared would have a lot of support. It was a sneaky way of avoiding an issue that should have come before the House of Commons."
Dalyell said he had been contacted by one of the Queen's aides following the blocking of his backbench bill and he understands the government instructed the Queen to refuse consent in order to kill off a proposal that was gaining Labour support among MPs opposed to military action in Iraq.
That appears to be supported by a Buckingham Palace statement on the application of the veto, which said: "The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."
A Cabinet Office spokesman said it would not "discuss any discussions between us and the royal palaces". Alastair Campbell, the prime minister's communications adviser at the time the bill was quashed, said he could not recall the case.
Dalyell said he was concerned that the power could be used to prevent parliament from intervening in future war plans through private members' bills.
"This could happen again," he said. "The palace has to be very careful not to do the government's dirty work. They blocked my bill because the government thought they were threatened in the House of Commons. This is relevant today. I was angry then and I still am."
At least two other bills have been blocked by the Queen, it emerged , both on the advice of ministers who had political objections. The first came in 1964 in the case of the titles (abolition) bill, which was embarrassing to Harold Wilson's newly elected Labour government, which had a slender majority and did not want any legislative debate about the desirability of titles such as lordships and damehoods.
The other was the Rhodesia independence bill of 1969 which sought autonomy for the African colony which Wilson's government was opposed to while it was in a state of rebellion. The examples were identified by Professor Rodney Brazier, a legal academic and informal constitutional adviser to the Queen's private secretary, in an academic paper published in the Cambridge Law Journal in 2007.
Chloe Smith, the Cabinet Office minister, said the Queen and Prince Charles had not vetoed any bills in the past decade, but it remains unknown which, if any bills, have been altered during the consent process. MPs and peers have been calling for greater transparency over the application of the royal powers of consent, but Smith this week told parliament the government would not publish a full account of which bills have been subject to royal consent because it would be too expensive.
Tam Dalyell, the sponsor of a 1999 parliamentary bill that aimed to give MPs a vote on military action against Saddam Hussein, said he is "incandescent and angry" that it was blocked by the Queen under apparent influence from Tony Blair's government. It also emerged that Harold Wilson used the Queen's power to kill off politically embarrassing bills about Zimbabwe and peerages.
MPs and republicans have complained the little-known power to veto or consent to new legislation grants the Queen and Prince Charles unwarranted powers and is undemocratic. Detail about its application is only now emerging as a result of a freedom of information campaign by a legal scholar, and the Guardian revealed on Monday at least 39 different laws have been subject to the secretive royal consent arrangement.
Dalyall's military actions against Iraq bill would have given parliament sole authority to sanction strikes on Iraq, and he alleged Blair's government told Buckingham Palace the Queen should withhold her consent. The bill was introduced a month after the US and UK operation Desert Fox air strikes against Iraq.
"The issue as far as I am concerned is that Buckingham Palace was used by Downing Street," said Dalyell. "I don't blame the palace … this was entirely the handiwork of Downing Street. It was about snuffing out a measure they feared would have a lot of support. It was a sneaky way of avoiding an issue that should have come before the House of Commons."
Dalyell said he had been contacted by one of the Queen's aides following the blocking of his backbench bill and he understands the government instructed the Queen to refuse consent in order to kill off a proposal that was gaining Labour support among MPs opposed to military action in Iraq.
That appears to be supported by a Buckingham Palace statement on the application of the veto, which said: "The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."
A Cabinet Office spokesman said it would not "discuss any discussions between us and the royal palaces". Alastair Campbell, the prime minister's communications adviser at the time the bill was quashed, said he could not recall the case.
Dalyell said he was concerned that the power could be used to prevent parliament from intervening in future war plans through private members' bills.
"This could happen again," he said. "The palace has to be very careful not to do the government's dirty work. They blocked my bill because the government thought they were threatened in the House of Commons. This is relevant today. I was angry then and I still am."
At least two other bills have been blocked by the Queen, it emerged , both on the advice of ministers who had political objections. The first came in 1964 in the case of the titles (abolition) bill, which was embarrassing to Harold Wilson's newly elected Labour government, which had a slender majority and did not want any legislative debate about the desirability of titles such as lordships and damehoods.
The other was the Rhodesia independence bill of 1969 which sought autonomy for the African colony which Wilson's government was opposed to while it was in a state of rebellion. The examples were identified by Professor Rodney Brazier, a legal academic and informal constitutional adviser to the Queen's private secretary, in an academic paper published in the Cambridge Law Journal in 2007.
Chloe Smith, the Cabinet Office minister, said the Queen and Prince Charles had not vetoed any bills in the past decade, but it remains unknown which, if any bills, have been altered during the consent process. MPs and peers have been calling for greater transparency over the application of the royal powers of consent, but Smith this week told parliament the government would not publish a full account of which bills have been subject to royal consent because it would be too expensive.
Monday, 20 June 2011
Don't worry Kate, there will never be a royal expenses row
Independent.co.uk
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:
The entourage to Canada and the US will be 'humble' with only seven adults accompanying the couple. The national self-delusion is now untreatable
Monday, 20 June 2011
Pictures of Kate Middleton appear daily on the front pages. Last week, she showcased clothes costing £12,000. Didn't she look lovely? She smiled and waved too – such an exhausting job, who would want it? All the aspirational young women lining up to apply to St Andrews where Katie bagged her prince. The university is about to team up with the elite American William and Mary College in Virginia (note the monarchist moniker) to charge £18,000 a year for a joint BA degree. Perhaps the next Mrs Simpson will also come from there – rich North Americans love aristocratic connections and all things royal. And this summer they are in for the biggest treat.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (what do these titles mean? Is a duke higher than a prince? Who bloody cares?) are preparing to visit Canada and the US for their first official overseas tour starting 30 June. Expect a flood of images, nauseating sycophancy, endless smiles and airhead fashionista commentaries. The entourage will be "humble", say loyal watchers, with only seven adults accompanying the couple. So no lackey to put toothpaste on to a toothbrush, something Prince Charles must have. More modest still, no dresser or Lady in Waiting. And the people are lapping it all up, like hungry cats round a cream bowl. The downturn? Economic hard times? Cuts and public sector strikes? All the people need are the diverting accounts of the undeserving rich to get by. Only the really curmudgeonly or perfidious Commies would say otherwise. Those of us who can't stand the circus are made to feel treacherous outsiders – a cold place to be.
After the euphoria of the wedding, the phenomenal success of The King's Speech, the honeyed tributes to rude Prince Philip on his 90th birthday, I feel almost defeated. We republicans are losing the battle. There were moments when it seemed as if the nation was shaking, shuddering with righteous indignation at appalling royal behaviour. That fever went down, and we are back to the status quo.
In our flawed democracy, some are born to lord it over us, even if they are stupid, unattractive (in all senses), immoral, badly behaved, drunk, spoilt, adulterous, callous and irresponsible. Examples can be provided for all of these within the present lot of royals. Going back, the list would get more colourful still, with a long line of serious miscreants and corrupt blue-bloods. The point though is that even if they are perfect, they were handed status and wealth at birth and that is wrong. This Queen certainly deserves respect for her diplomacy and for embodying the transition from the British Empire to post-colonial nationhood. But she heads a morally indefensible institution and can't see the harm that does. This year, just after it was revealed that Prince Andrew, the wastrel "helicopter prince", was flying around doing deals with dodgy dictators, his mum stuck more medals on him and later on their irascible dad too, just a birthday present.
But, alas this country's not for turning. A cunningly managed restoration of popularity has ensured the future of the monarchy. Charles will be King; then William. Kate, the millionaires' daughter, will beget an heir and they will live happily ever after. And the people will happily pay for them. There is never going to be a royals expenses row. They are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, though they cost us millions, including their tax-free allowances and gargantuan security costs. It still isn't enough. In 2010, the Queen tried to get money for palace repairs from a state fund set aside for energy-saving changes to homes and hospitals. "Relative poverty" took on a whole new meaning then, as does the "relative" frugality of the coming Canadian trip.
Defenders of the family say their palaces attract tourists. In India after independence, they got rid of their Maharajahs and Maharanis but retained the opulent residences. Tell me the country gets fewer tourists because they don't have real royals any more. And anyway, only a small part of our tourism industry (one fifth) comes from overseas visitors – the sector as a whole makes up about 9 per cent of GDP. Legoland in Windsor has more visitors by far than Windsor castle. Supporters also exaggerate the effectiveness of British royals. The Queen's remarkable visit to Ireland, her undoubted dignity and moving speech, are given as an example. Was the Irish President Mary McAleese any less dignified or impressive? If they believe that, the national self-delusion is now untreatable.
One Quebec legislator, Amir Khadir, denounced the visit of the "parasites" and the Canadian premier quickly intervened, affirming that his people hold the couple "in very great esteem". That esteem should come only when the couple show they understand what so many of their people are going through. Britain is barely recovering from economic depths it reached last year. More than 100,000 disabled children will no longer receive extra money to help them cope; many families are already living below the poverty line and more will join them as new rules are passed. Kate, meanwhile, wears a gown costing nearly £5,000 to raise money for charity. A fat donation without the costly extravaganza would have done more good and appeared less self-serving.
Why aren't people more angry? They were with expense-claiming MPs who do long hours and put themselves up for tortuous elections. Even in Swaziland, where the King and his many wives rule absolutely, the women of the nation came out in 2008 to demonstrate against the outrageous royal lifestyles. Think about that.
The furious brigade will send off missives about how I have no right to criticise "their" Queen. Let them remember she was my Queen when I was born under the imperial sun. Previously her ancestors declared themselves rulers in India and elsewhere, without popular consent. Here, though, most of the people consent to the most blatant symbol of inequality and celebrate it. Kate has given them more reason and the jubilee next year gives them another boost.
Republicanism may well come to Swaziland one day. But not here. Not ever. Game, set and match to the wasteful Windsors.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:
The entourage to Canada and the US will be 'humble' with only seven adults accompanying the couple. The national self-delusion is now untreatable
Monday, 20 June 2011
Pictures of Kate Middleton appear daily on the front pages. Last week, she showcased clothes costing £12,000. Didn't she look lovely? She smiled and waved too – such an exhausting job, who would want it? All the aspirational young women lining up to apply to St Andrews where Katie bagged her prince. The university is about to team up with the elite American William and Mary College in Virginia (note the monarchist moniker) to charge £18,000 a year for a joint BA degree. Perhaps the next Mrs Simpson will also come from there – rich North Americans love aristocratic connections and all things royal. And this summer they are in for the biggest treat.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (what do these titles mean? Is a duke higher than a prince? Who bloody cares?) are preparing to visit Canada and the US for their first official overseas tour starting 30 June. Expect a flood of images, nauseating sycophancy, endless smiles and airhead fashionista commentaries. The entourage will be "humble", say loyal watchers, with only seven adults accompanying the couple. So no lackey to put toothpaste on to a toothbrush, something Prince Charles must have. More modest still, no dresser or Lady in Waiting. And the people are lapping it all up, like hungry cats round a cream bowl. The downturn? Economic hard times? Cuts and public sector strikes? All the people need are the diverting accounts of the undeserving rich to get by. Only the really curmudgeonly or perfidious Commies would say otherwise. Those of us who can't stand the circus are made to feel treacherous outsiders – a cold place to be.
After the euphoria of the wedding, the phenomenal success of The King's Speech, the honeyed tributes to rude Prince Philip on his 90th birthday, I feel almost defeated. We republicans are losing the battle. There were moments when it seemed as if the nation was shaking, shuddering with righteous indignation at appalling royal behaviour. That fever went down, and we are back to the status quo.
In our flawed democracy, some are born to lord it over us, even if they are stupid, unattractive (in all senses), immoral, badly behaved, drunk, spoilt, adulterous, callous and irresponsible. Examples can be provided for all of these within the present lot of royals. Going back, the list would get more colourful still, with a long line of serious miscreants and corrupt blue-bloods. The point though is that even if they are perfect, they were handed status and wealth at birth and that is wrong. This Queen certainly deserves respect for her diplomacy and for embodying the transition from the British Empire to post-colonial nationhood. But she heads a morally indefensible institution and can't see the harm that does. This year, just after it was revealed that Prince Andrew, the wastrel "helicopter prince", was flying around doing deals with dodgy dictators, his mum stuck more medals on him and later on their irascible dad too, just a birthday present.
But, alas this country's not for turning. A cunningly managed restoration of popularity has ensured the future of the monarchy. Charles will be King; then William. Kate, the millionaires' daughter, will beget an heir and they will live happily ever after. And the people will happily pay for them. There is never going to be a royals expenses row. They are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, though they cost us millions, including their tax-free allowances and gargantuan security costs. It still isn't enough. In 2010, the Queen tried to get money for palace repairs from a state fund set aside for energy-saving changes to homes and hospitals. "Relative poverty" took on a whole new meaning then, as does the "relative" frugality of the coming Canadian trip.
Defenders of the family say their palaces attract tourists. In India after independence, they got rid of their Maharajahs and Maharanis but retained the opulent residences. Tell me the country gets fewer tourists because they don't have real royals any more. And anyway, only a small part of our tourism industry (one fifth) comes from overseas visitors – the sector as a whole makes up about 9 per cent of GDP. Legoland in Windsor has more visitors by far than Windsor castle. Supporters also exaggerate the effectiveness of British royals. The Queen's remarkable visit to Ireland, her undoubted dignity and moving speech, are given as an example. Was the Irish President Mary McAleese any less dignified or impressive? If they believe that, the national self-delusion is now untreatable.
One Quebec legislator, Amir Khadir, denounced the visit of the "parasites" and the Canadian premier quickly intervened, affirming that his people hold the couple "in very great esteem". That esteem should come only when the couple show they understand what so many of their people are going through. Britain is barely recovering from economic depths it reached last year. More than 100,000 disabled children will no longer receive extra money to help them cope; many families are already living below the poverty line and more will join them as new rules are passed. Kate, meanwhile, wears a gown costing nearly £5,000 to raise money for charity. A fat donation without the costly extravaganza would have done more good and appeared less self-serving.
Why aren't people more angry? They were with expense-claiming MPs who do long hours and put themselves up for tortuous elections. Even in Swaziland, where the King and his many wives rule absolutely, the women of the nation came out in 2008 to demonstrate against the outrageous royal lifestyles. Think about that.
The furious brigade will send off missives about how I have no right to criticise "their" Queen. Let them remember she was my Queen when I was born under the imperial sun. Previously her ancestors declared themselves rulers in India and elsewhere, without popular consent. Here, though, most of the people consent to the most blatant symbol of inequality and celebrate it. Kate has given them more reason and the jubilee next year gives them another boost.
Republicanism may well come to Swaziland one day. But not here. Not ever. Game, set and match to the wasteful Windsors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)