Do we need the monarchy?


Thought a bit of excessively dotty flooding of the site with Kate baby things was in order yesterday, in keeping with the indigenous nation.

The obvious political question is not so much whether we need a monarchy or not – for a start, that should read “constitutional monarchy” – but whether we should retain the constitutional monarchy we actually have, which is fulfilling its brief in some ways but not in others.

Some of the criticisms can be answered:

1.  The groundrents and other excesses.   If they weren’t paid to royals, then they’d be paid to private landlords who could charge anything.  This way it’s kept under scrutiny.

2.  The royals are a useless drain on the taxpayer.  They are less a drain on the taxpayer than bureaucratic fatcats even down to a low level, all of whom are on inflated, taxpayer funded sinecures.    And whereas the bureaucrats fulfil no ostensible purpose, the royals do work.  They’re our ambassadors and another thing – they’re loved by many whereas the bureaucrats are detested.  Plus, being under scrutiny 24/7, the royals are not likely to rip off any further than what is laid down, they don’t go for huge pay increases etc.

Someone has to represent the nation in the world and I’d prefer the young royals to MPs swanning around the globe at my expense.

3.  The old argument of “the money could be better spent”.   This has always been.  We shouldn’t have climbed Everest, we shouldn’t have gone to the moon [if we did].   The argument will always be there.  I say look at the royals and how they function [now, not decades ago].  Now look at every little leftist dreaming up new ways to waste taxpayers’ money on one ridiculous scheme after another and the hugely damaging, excessive amounts spent on compliance, e.g. with the EU.

The costs of the two just don’t compare and you’re at least getting value from the royals.

4.  A “modern” democracy doesn’t need these trappings.   You’d rather be in the hands of an Obama, yes?   You’d rather have the excesses of Blair or Cameron as the sole arbiters?   The people of this land like all this pageantry, this pomp and circumstance – that is clear enough in the outpouring and the way the world was waiting for that baby yesterday.   Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, why not use the royals to advantage?

Where the Red Army was the arbiter of prestige and place in the world for Russia, the royals are here.

5.  They’re a bunch of bloodsucking lizards.  W-e-e-l-l-l, they might be, they might not be.  The Queen is certainly a Welf and the Welfs are Middle Temple where Wills and Kate went at the time of the conception, and Middle Temple is Templars and Templars are the Venetians and the Venetians are the original den of evil – there’s a good case to be made there.

The question is weighing that against how much real power they wield in the country, which comes to the next one:

6.  The Crown is not the country.  This is known by more and more people now.  It’s a country within a country and all that money goes to The Firm which goes to the monarchies in general, to the class.   The people don’t get a look in.   I’d argue that as long as that’s known – which admittedly it’s not, not generally known yet – then there is still a case for a nominal royalty in the sense that it currently exists – what best to do with it?

And again, if it wasn’t them, then who would it be – the CFR?   The TLC, IMF, BIS, the Fed?    The faceless ones behind the scenes.   If these royals really are demons, then what can we do about them?   SFA.   But we can contain them within the protocols of the past 100 years, in much the same way that the battered and under assault American Constitution still stands as a bulwark.    And they do present well in representing us as a nation.

I suppose it comes back to the French Revolution question again.   Which was worse – the monarchy as it was or the abject horror of your fate being decided by Citizen’s Committees – the locals down the road in all their unwashedness and bloodthirstiness?    It’s an out-of-the-frying-pan situation again and there has been NO time in history where an oligarchy has not taken over and the result has not been far worse, far more excessive.

This is the better-the-devil-you-know argument of course.

7.  The Queen is a traitor, signing away the country to the EU.   She did but does that not also show she is bound by constitutional constraints?    That is, she has to sign what Blair or Cameron put in front of her.

I’m for direct democracy via electronic means such as Yougov uses [the Ivan principle] and if that democracy wants to be rid of the royals, then that’s for a later time to resolve.   Meanwhile, methinks it’s better to concentrate on getting rid of the Big 3 in parliament first, by a massive campaign against them, then we can start looking at the outward form of the nation.

Post navigation

41 comments for “Do we need the monarchy?

  1. Rossa
    July 23, 2013 at 07:44

    According to Pivotfarm on Zerohedge, Obama costs $1.4 billion a year including $100,000 for the dog walker.

    People also forget that the Queen doesn’t own a lot of the buildings, artworks or the Crown Jewels, though she does have her own private wealth. The Crown estates pay a lot more to the Treasury than she gets back via the Civil list. The Duchy of Cornwall is only one of them. Charles doesn’t own it, effectively it is a private estate run like a corporation and he is paid as if he is the de-facto Chairman. The upkeep of places like Buckingham Palace are ‘for the nation’ in much the same way as Parliament and other government buildings are.

    Running counter to that, the Royal Wedding apparently generated $2 billion in revenue but cost $6 billion in down time with people taking time off to watch it etc.

  2. Moggsy
    July 23, 2013 at 08:22

    Surely the money the royals get is much less than they actually earn from managing their property. So far from being a ‘drain’ they give cash to the government pot.

    OK in a way it is state properlty but really the Queen is the state. I hope you don’t have anything against property rights, or we really do have a big difference.

    Then they have far more impact in the world than some politician.

    Also I don’t know of anyone who swore an oath to the government or prime minister or flag. Not the army nor the police, nor even the scouts and guides. Doesn’t she say “my government” in the Queen’s speech?

    She doesn’t mean it like “my boss” she means it like “my secretary”.

    Yes we do benefit and need a monarchy, if only to keep politicians off that top rung.

  3. July 23, 2013 at 08:41

    Agree with both.

  4. Andrew Duffin
    July 23, 2013 at 09:21

    I believe the monarchy costs us less than a pound each, every year (or some such paltry figure) which strikes me as excellent value for money. Less than the bbc, for instance, and I know which I’d prefer if I had the choice.

    Also as others have said, we need some sort of head of state or figurehead character, and the alternative to HM is some dodgy ex-flatmate of Tony Blair’s, up to his neck in dealings with Asiatic dictators or Union heavies or both, and generally being a member of the political class.

    Again, I know which I’d prefer.

    Besides, she has a lovely smile and is delightful to talk to; How many politicians can you say that about?

  5. July 23, 2013 at 09:31

    Andrew – couldn’t have put it better. Just seems value for money and a very important aspect – the people as a whole like them. And it is tourist dollars, part of our economy.

    Plus we’re the real deal. It’s not some tinpot third world, brightly coloured excess – it really is pomp and majesty and they’re ours. I’ve known many Russians – very proud of Mother Russia – but they find us outstanding – a lot of it in our manners.

    Just reading the Telegraph. A quick one – the antiChrist must be, I seem to recall, “not born of woman”. could be wrong. This one was born of woman.

    So we’re told. The Middletons weren’t allowed in there.


  6. richard
    July 23, 2013 at 13:15

    No, we don’t need a monarchy. HM the Q was supposed to protect the realm from “foreign powers and princes” and now the kingdom’s skint, and run by the frogs and the krauts. That’s the political mess she’s responsible for. Plus there’s something not right about people bowing and scraping to a granny just because of her genetic code.

  7. ivan
    July 23, 2013 at 13:26

    I agree with the comments above but I would like to see one small change.

    Instead of being a rubber stamp for everything the government does I would like the Queen, or King, to be able to tell them to reconsider a piece of legislation that is not in the interests of her people and if necessary force them to have the population vote on it. Doing that should concentrate the minds of the politicians and make them more accountable to those they are supposed to represent.

  8. ivan
    July 23, 2013 at 13:36

    Sorry, richard got in before me. I can see his point about protecting the realm but the way things have been twisted in the past she has had that ability removed and I wish it was restored.

    As for bowing and scraping to a granny – actually a great granny now – that comes from the position not the person, it is a form of respect – something very much lacking in todays generation.

  9. richard
    July 23, 2013 at 14:01

    The position IS the person, that’s the problem. Good or useless, it doesn’t matter, we’re stuck with her.. As for being merely a rubber stamp, if that’s the case why not replace her with an actual rubber stamp? If she isn’t just a signer-offer then she’s failed. Respect? Nope. She could have said no, my coronation oath etc, but now we are ruled not governed – by unelected Euroocrats. All very sad.

  10. July 23, 2013 at 14:12

    Hmmmm – reduced to silence for once.

  11. Moggsy
    July 23, 2013 at 14:27

    Ivan, Sure.. The Lords did that once too often and “they” have been trying to abolish it piece by piece for years since.

    How long do you think the Monarchy would last if the Queen actually said “No” even once? Richard Ditto. (except as something like a politician nominated by each party in turn and voted for by parliament once every 5 years?)

    The difference between constitutional theory and reality is nothing vs the smell of coffee in the morning.

  12. Harry J
    July 23, 2013 at 15:27

    No, the Royals are Them writ large.

  13. richard
    July 23, 2013 at 19:07

    That is the thing, Moggsy. If HM can’t say “no” then she isn’t any use. If she can but doesn’t, then either she is unable to uphold her oath to protect the realm from foreign princes and potentates or else she doesn’t want to. She is either just a EU citizen who is a mere figurehead or else a Queen who refuses or is unable to act in the interest of her subjects. If the Monarchy is so fragile that a “no, take this legislation away please” would result in it’s dissolution, then it’s time to wonder what it is actually for. Waving flags might please some, but the country’s being ruined as HM rubber-stamps the erosion of civil liberties and accountable governance.

  14. July 23, 2013 at 19:33

    Still reduced to silence.

  15. wiggia
    July 23, 2013 at 19:54

    I suppose the reality of all this is that royalty and by that I mean the Queen has had all her power stripped away regardless of the constitution, not in a literal sense but by the pressure of parliaments to as Richard said become a rubber stamp, whether she should have the power in a modern world to say no depends on where she is coming from and what we as a nation require, whatever that might be I’m sure we will never get.
    That as they say is the conundrum, nobody really knows, as the status quo at this moment of time Moggsy quite rightly says that or implies do we really want President Blair or whatever, may the status quo carry on as long as there is no pretense that HM really has any power, she hasn’t it is all a sad charade.

  16. Moggsy
    July 23, 2013 at 20:24

    Richard/Wiggia, The No is probably the “nuclear option” but it _is_ an option and it might not be so nuclear as it seems.

    The question you need to ask your self is this. If the Prime Minister ordered the Queen arrested and the Queen ordered the Prime Minister arrested who would be the one the one to end up in Jail?

    After the dust settled I am thinking there might need to be elections.

    Politicians work on the ‘boiling frog’ principle, but I guess smart people see that and the rest vote for warmer water. ^_^

  17. Fubar
    July 23, 2013 at 20:45

    I’m not sure we should ever go back to the days of a monarch making all the decrees and laws, but I’d just love her to say no every once in a while.

  18. ivan
    July 23, 2013 at 22:49

    Moggsy, I think the answer to your last question is that we would definitely need an election for the simple reason that the military swear allegiance to the crown and a lot of them would love to have a go at the polis.

    At the moment the fact we don’t have a written constitution and what was written has been eroded so much that it is only a dim shadow of what it was has left the country without the final backstop the monarch was intended to be. Not the one to make the laws but the one to ask ‘have you really thought this through’ and, if necessary, to tell the PM to take it back and either scrap it or redo as necessary. After all someone has to look out for the population and it certainly isn’t the MPs, they’re just there for what they can get out of it for themselves.

    If we had something approaching the above we would be getting nearer to a democracy but I doubt it will happen because the polis, like pigs, would never vote to take their snouts out of the public funded trough.

  19. July 24, 2013 at 04:52

    The Crown protect our interests? Have we forgotten Charles’ leaked letter in ’97 attempting to sway parliament into not enacting The Charter of Human Rights[’98]?

    It is not permitted for any royal family member to interfere with parliament so,disregarding that pesky little law, he simply tried to influence them covertly,behind our backs, to our detriment.

    Whilst he personally may need no formal,legislated protections[his letter only proving why we do] he claimed no one else did either as Britons were a distinctly respectful and kindly people that did not need such legislation to motivate them into treating one another fairly and justly.[The irony lost on him that he was, in fact, trying to prevent us from enjoying any fundamental protections and rights that the rest of the free world have enjoyed for 500 years.]

    He tried to warn that we would become like the Americans, our courthouses clogged with people suing for breaches to their human rights[which is again quite contradictory to his firm stance that we are a kindly people who need no legal motivation to treat one another fairly and justly…..:)]

    That does not sound like a [future]defender of the realm to me,unless by realm they mean the crown itself.

    I’ll take the Charter Of Human Rights thankyouverymuch and enjoy them as high maintenance ‘celebs’ who scrub up well for photo ops and stamps, who do bring in the tourist punters ,and make us feel proud and snotty in the royal uniqueness they bring us on the world stage, but in a restricted ,non-political,figurehead role. 🙂

  20. July 24, 2013 at 07:02

    What a lot of interesting views and pretty well every one pertinent.

    I like having a Monarch and when I was a Military chap I did ‘Swear’ allegiance to the Crown, not the Gumnut.

    Moggsy’s question is brilliant. If it came to a Mexican arrest standoff, who would we throw in the clink? Queen or PM ? What would the military do? Indeed the Military did unofficially threaten to remove Harold Wilson by force of arms. The three ‘Heads’ of the Services went to Downing St, together, in Uniform with their hats on (as we say) and quietly read the riot act to the little shit whilst teams from MoD went around the Officers’ Messes hosing down discontent and seditious talk. But the threat was there. Many of my peers were talking of Tanks rattling down the road to London.

    Even the best of leadership is often inadequate and frankly, despite my affection for Betty, she has shown remarkably little backbone in successive ‘Openings’ of Parliament, sitting there spouting scripted crap. I would that she would simply say, “My Government intends to do this and that which I am obliged to confirm, despite my deep sense that they are taking you, my Beloved Subjects, down a path to perdition”.

    We have a Monarchy chained to its throne by laws passed several hundred years ago by thugs. It is high time we had a proper Constitutional Monarchy.

  21. July 24, 2013 at 08:03

    It’s going to be interesting to see how these 2 [3] behave.

  22. Moggsy
    July 24, 2013 at 11:44

    Ivan, Maybe you need to brush up a bit on things. Who is it the Polis (Brit-cops?) swear their oath to?

    That’s right, the Crown… and to do it without fear, or favour. Soo, based on that, why would the military need to be having a go at the cops or vice versa?

    And one other thing, you have this assumption that we need to be closer to democrasy.. what form exactly, ^_^ A ‘dictatorship of the masses’? Democrasy hasn’t worked out so well for Iran or Egypt recently. Are you in favour of prisoners getting the vote btw?

    Uber, I think the ‘argument’ maybe revolved around unelected influence on government?

    I am unelected, as far as I know you are. We can write to anyone we please to put a viewpoint… as long as there are no injunctions and it does not constitute harrassment ^_^ .

    If I were immensely rich or powerful I still would. I am entitled to have an opinion. There is the same question over powerful lobbying interests, Party donors and the Unions.

    Maybe you can remind what actual law says Charles can’t express his views to Members of parliament, I don’t remember it?

    I don’t remember hearing anything much Charles said sounded any more wrong, or even nutty than many elected officials and most of it far less ^_^

    Basically he is a sensible unsentimental advocate of actual real practical sustainable environmentalism… and says what most of us think about modern schools of architecture. Did I miss much there? Not exactly grinding his heels on the opressed masses.

    I think people _are_ mostly kindly and decent. Mostly and most of the time, not all. Mostly they don’t need legislation to be that way… mostly.

    As for Ambulance chasers that you touch on, I do think it is a shame when Drs can be penalised more for trying to help someone out in an emergeny than for just waliking on by. There seems to be something wrong there and I can’t think anyone would morally approve of that.

    Interesting comment Amfortas. It was a kind of “If who and who else had a fight, who would win?”, thought wasn’t it…

  23. July 24, 2013 at 12:37

    Come again, Moggs? 🙂

  24. Moggsy
    July 24, 2013 at 12:46

    Uber, I didn’t get that worked up over it the first time ^_^

  25. July 24, 2013 at 12:59

    I have re-read you now and see what you’re getting at.

    The Royal family are restricted from attempting to influence or involve themselves in parliamentary affairs [aside from the Queen’s limited rubber stamp role], the expectation being that they remain apolitical, hence his attempts to exert his opinion a covert missive.

    And I certainly do take it as him ‘grinding his heel into the oppressed masses’ when trying to use his position of power to sway,in hopes to deny, laws coming into effect that protect the masses from people who would deny them fundamental human rights with one well shod heel. He is far more interested in preserving the well being of bricks and mortar[thanks for reminding me]. 🙂

    Far different from you or me writing anyone proffering our opinion,’Ubermouth’ not having the influence -YET-of a future King. 🙂

  26. Moggsy
    July 24, 2013 at 14:28

    Uber, I think you are still not getting what I said. It was _you_ was saying that.

    You said it was Illegal for Charles to express his opinion like that. I said I wasn’t aware of any law made it illegal for him to express an opinion, write to MPs and such, but allow as I am not a total expert so I asked where was a reference to that.

    Personally I am fine with him doing that in individual, non party political ways. I trust his judgement better than anyone I have got to vote for so far ^_^ but maybe he was too easily influenced when he was younger?

    Wanting to please others at the expense of what was wise, like getting married when and to whom he did, but hind sight is a wonderful thing and I guess there are lots of people been there. He has grown into his skin now I think.

    You might take it as grinding heels, I don’t rally see how anyone might truly do that and I don’t think that is so in the least little way.

    I am open to suspecting sneaky heel grinding.. just because. ^_^ Generally randomly of most anyone, but looking at the facts I know, I personally really don’t think so this time.

    Human rights is another thing. Are they over-rated? They sure earn lawyers good money. Is anythuing that does that a good thing?

    A person could argue that just ordinary basic rights and liberties are way more important, if they wanted the cat to spook the birds. ^_^

  27. July 24, 2013 at 19:33

    This is turning out entertaining.

  28. richard
    July 24, 2013 at 23:17

    HM head of taxes, police, armed forces, her own church, her own fiat currency, has signed nine death warrants (but it was only N-word types so no-one cares) has rubber stamped all manner of intrusive laws, has handed sovereignty to Huns, is the richest landowner in the world, her boy was best mates with SavIle, her hubby said he wanted to be reincarnated as a deadly virus, she has plenty of spare rooms in her enormous houses but signed off the bedroom tax, she owns the sea bed and gets royalties for offshore windfarms which don’t work. That’s before we get into some rather iffy conspiracy theories but it’ll do for starters.
    Ants and bees need queens, I believe that the meek will inherit the earth so in answer to the question, no we don’t need a Monarchy. It’s force with a very expensive hat.

  29. JD
    July 25, 2013 at 00:02

    Martin Lings explains in this book the institution of Monarchy-

    and on 23rd February 1981, Juan Carlos demonstrated it-

    … without the King, Spain would have re-started its Civil War.

  30. richard
    July 25, 2013 at 00:29

    On reflection, I may have done a bad thing linking HRH Charles to J Savile in a prejudicial manner. There is no evidence that the prince knew of the rumours about the disgraced DJ, or in fact that the criminal allegations against Savile are true, since he cannot produce evidence to defend himself in court, being dead. He was not found guilty during his lifetime, and having read Anna Raccoon’s recent piece I am starting to wonder if there is more billowing smoke than any actual fire. So I have to retract any implication that Charles was guilty by association.

  31. July 25, 2013 at 05:10

    Anna Raccoon, Richard, is THE internet authority in the Savile fiasco. A great blogger.

    I wonder when she and James will get together over a cuppa. 🙂

  32. July 25, 2013 at 06:12


    Anna Raccoon doesn’t like me. I tried a couple of times to engage in conversation but she never replied, she was very wary. It was during the days when the Libertarian camp in the UK was split and I appeared to take the unpopular side, that of a former president and the current one at the time.

    One side said she was a shill [they say they showed it] but the other side defended her Libertarian credentials. I have no issue with her as such – she appears to be the one with the issue or else she simply doesn’t think about this blog in the least, as most of the world doesn’t.

    On the other hand, I get on well with Sean Gabb and Ian Parker-Joseph, both luminaries of the Libertarian cause. Another I’d like to count a friend is Richard Carey. Many of the Libertarians see me as a Christian neo-con who is trying to proselytize to get all of you to church on Sunday.

    That’s in line with the leftists who see me as the antiChrist.

    I think that says more about them than it does about me. As for yours truly, I see myself as unimportant and interested in everything.


    As for this thread, thanks, people – illuminating.

  33. Moggsy
    July 25, 2013 at 09:32

    Just a thought… Richard, and _many_ others all over should be a teensey bit more charitable towards the Royals. ^_^

    If only because when they comment about the Royals tradition generally bails them out when they are rash with their pronouncements and economical with their thinking.

    If it were anyone else they were talking about they might find themselves having their asses handed to them in a libel court.

  34. July 25, 2013 at 18:37

    See, that’s where our rights are not something to be dismissed/overridden lightly , Moggs[ including the right to discuss public figures,politicians and the royals under the laws governing free speech][notwithstanding subjective opinion is not liable under libel/slander laws YET]. 🙂

    Do we have free speech in England yet? The redtops seem to. 🙂

    I hear the Tower of London is lovely this time of year. 🙂

  35. Moggsy
    July 26, 2013 at 08:11

    Uber, maybe you misinterpreted my comment?

    One thing – You surely can discuss public figures under the laws governing free speech, no one says you can’t.

    No one said (the Speaker’s wife was it?) couldn’t either, but then (innocent face ^_^ as they say) it seems she went and stepped outside them.

    I am thinking this is wandering a bit off topic anyhow, but, no bad or anything, stuff does, just in general conversation. ^_^

  36. July 26, 2013 at 08:23

    There have been defamation cases with Lord Haw Haw wanting to litigate anyone who moved recently. I’m inclined to actually target him and get the goods because of his antics. Sally Bercow, the berk also had that.

    Enough money from that to go on a Scottish alpine skiing holiday.

    People like ourselves though stay defamed. The vendettas I’ve had on me and they’re still going – one wonders. I think it’s because they know the coffers are empty.

    Slightly o/t – did you see that divorce today costing them around $850 000 I think in legal and other costs. Messy, messy. Why do people not just walk away and agree to act fairly?

  37. Moggsy
    July 26, 2013 at 09:03

    When lawyers get involved, except to make sure the paperwork is legal, then you know you are in trouble.

    It’s not new, just one of those things everyone sees new first time. Charles Dickens wrote about that in Bleak House, Jarndyce vs Jarndyce

  38. July 26, 2013 at 12:55

    Moggsy, stop showing off your education. 🙂

  39. Distant Relative
    March 21, 2017 at 13:22

    “5. ….. The Queen is certainly a Welf and the Welfs are Middle Temple …….. and Middle Temple is Templars and Templars are the Venetians and the Venetians are the original den of evil – there’s a good case to be made there.”

    Got the Welfs or Guelfs or Guelphs bit but not the ties to Middle Temple, Templars and Venetians (yet). Respectfully requesting any evidence you have got for that. Point out which direction I should look, if you would be so kind. TYIA.

Comments are closed.