Tuesday, January 6, 2015

The British Royals: Is It Time to Give Them the Chop?

Above the ebb and flow of party strife, the rise and fall of ministries, and individuals, the changes of public opinion or public fortune, the British Monarchy presides, ancient, calm and supreme within its function, over all the treasures that have been saved from the past and all the glories we write in the annals of our country.
Winston Churchill.
There are many excellent reasons for a constitutional monarchy, among them that it discourages megalomania on the part of the head of government. Under Britain's constitutional monarchy, David Cameron, a rather inconsequential public relations flack, on becoming Prime Minister, remained "Mr." Cameron and became resident at No. 10 Downing Street, rather than becoming President Cameron, resident at the Palace. Moreover, under the British constitution, Mr. Cameron, though head of the British government, possesses no power to declare any government measure law, since no law comes into effect without the assent of the monarch.

The necessity of the monarch's assent to legislation may be considered a flimsy check on a the power of the politician, but it not a totally insignificant check. For indeed, should the government of the day attempt a truly unpopular and unconstitutional action, the residual power of the Monarch remains: Queen Elizabeth, the commander in chief of Britain's armed forces, could, and who knows might, refuse assent. Then the popularity of the monarchy would be pitted against that of a wannabe tyrant. How that would turn out cannot be foretold, which is why the constitutional monarchy serves as a check on the ambition of mere politicians.

Unfortunately, Britain's monarchy today is not very popular. The queen soldiers on, smiling gamely, and surely deserving of public approbation. But a geriatric monarchy that goes on seemingly for ever doesn't evoke the warmest public sympathy, especially when the monarch's children, who are not the most beautiful people in the world, have a facility for making themselves deeply unpopular.

Dorky Prince Charles, already old enough to collect the Old-Age Pension, a man lacking the wisdom to make a success of his first marriage to the hugely popular Princess Diana, intends, it was recently announced, to "speak out" on becoming king, a clear indication that he simply does not know his place. One thing a constitutional monarch does not do is compete with the political class and "speak out" on public issues. The monarch can only "speak out" if they intend to create a constitutional crisis pitting themselves against the elected government. Charles's idea that as the king he will be able to join the political class making pronouncements intended to sway the masses is utterly inane and demonstrates a total unfitness for the monarchy.

New York: Prince Andrew with Ghislaine Maxwell and host Heidi Klumat a
"Pimps and Hookers" themed Halloween party in 2000.
Then there is Charles's clueless playboy brother Andrew, with his louche life-style and his alleged enjoyment of the pleasures of underage girls pimped at a Mossad brothel by American, billionaire, sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell, to date by far the largest thief in British history,* which really makes one wonder what one can possibly do with these people other than euthanize them.

Well not Elizabeth. I cannot believe she is entirely to blame for the way her children have turned out. But it's time for Her Majesty and the Duke to begin a well-earned retirement. Parliament should pass a new succession bill, establishing for the monarch a mandatory retirement age of 65 years. That would dispose of both the geriatric monarchy and Prince Charles in one simple measure and place the seemingly innocuous William on the throne. In fact, William seems a sensible fellow: modest and publicly non-committal, both excellent qualities in a British monarch. As for Kate, so far she has not put a foot wrong. So, yes, long-live King William V — to 65.

* Robert Maxwell stole around four hundred million pounds from the pension fund of his company, Maxwell Communications, thus outdoing Ronny Biggs and the Great Train Robbers in the magnitude of theft by a factor of about 200 to 1.

If the fact ever sinks in that Prince Andrew was a close friend of Ghislaine Maxwell, still a beneficiary of such massive theft from ordinary working people (by way of an 80,000-pound-a-year trust fund established by her father), it may dwarf public indignation over his exploitation of seemingly rather willing underage prostitutes, supplied by a billionaire sex offender.

How much, altogether, Ghislaine Maxwell and her siblings benefited from their father's peculation is not, it seems, generally known. However, it is known that Robert Maxwell's assets were mainly held in a Luxembourg trust where they would have been beyond the reach of those he had dispossessed. It is likely, therefore, that his ill-gotten gains, other than what were lost through business incompetence, have been at the disposal of his heirs. In any case Ghislaine Maxwell is reported to live very well indeed and mix only with the most important people other than, of course, the very young women that she introduces to the likes of Prince Andrew — after instructing them, so it has been reported, in the technique of erotic massage.)

No comments:

Post a Comment