The Facts About The British Monarchy

Why is there no real opposition to the monarchy in the UK? The majority of the British people seem to have an extreme case of Stockholm Syndrome. Let's get some things straight about the British monarchy:

First off,  they steal your money through taxation. The British people pay for the ridiculously lavish lifestyle of these super-rich people. The Queen's official expenditure increased by £900,000 from £32.4 million during the 2011/12 financial year to £33.3 million in 2012/13, according to the royal public finances annual report. So at a time when the Trussel Trust have seen the largest rise in the use of food banks since the charity began in 2000.346,992 people received a minimum of three days emergency food from Trussell Trust food banks in 2012-13, compared to 128,697 in 2011-12 and up from 26,000 in 2008-09.This is a seriously shocking statistic especially when you think that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's diamond jubilee tour of South East Asia and the South Pacific cost £370,000 alone it is clearly an excess that cannot be tolerated longer.
But have some of this. At a time when homelessness is on the rise in the UK and with charity Shelter in England saying that families living in B&B's is at a ten-year high there is at least eleven royal residences. So families on low wages, unable even to rent a proper home are paying for these palaces.
So what about this? How about giving people an option to pay for the royals excessive and ridiculous lifestyle. I wonder how many ardent royals and "pearly kings" would decide that that money is better off in their pockets and not in the claws of an out-of-touch throwback to the feudal age.
You could make the argument that we'll have to pay as much for a President. Firstly, we don't need to take care of a President's entire extended family and at least we'll have chosen to pay for that institution through our taxes and we'll have chose the particular person. We won't be forced to prop up a snobbish elitist family purely because of an accident of birth.

 They also count racists among their number. Prince Harry was filmed by the News of the World calling someone a 'Paki' and saying "You look like a 'raghead'" to another. And this is before we even get to the Duke of Edinburgh. Anyone could write a novel with the amount of vile rubbish that has come out of his mouth over the years. Including:
Peering at a fuse box in a Scottish factory, he said: “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian.” He later backtracked: “I meant to say cowboys.” 
At a WF meeting in 1986: “If it has four legs and it’s not a chair, if it’s got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it’s not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.”

To Aboriginal leader William Brin, Queensland, 2002: “Do you still throw spears at each each other?”

And that's just what they've said in  public! And these are often described as simply "gaffes" oh, look at the mistake the bumbling old man made, it's just a gaffe!

But it goes further than that. Elizabeth Burgess who worked as Prince Charles' personal secretary at Highgrove told an employment tribunal that she was subjected to years of racial abuse because she was black. She said the Prince's valet Michael Fawcett once called her 'a fucking nigger typist'. Although it must be stressed that it was never the prince himself she was accusing but the royal staff.

What about the issue of Catholics? Recent changes made it possible for a monarch to marry a Catholic but not for a Catholic to be monarch. Now I'm no cheerleader for the Catholic church, far, far from it but I don't think it's right to limit someone's power to be head of state based on what they choose to believe. I am against the Catholic church personally but not against their right to exist, people must be allowed absolute freedom to believe in whatever they want. Now, I've heard the classic "But the monarch is the head of the church of England. So they can't be a Catholic." Fair enough, let's explore that. Now I understand that the 'Supreme Governor' role given to the monarch is largely ceremonial but this does persist as an argument. So, why is a person the head of such a large religious organization based on what family they were born into? This person could be devoid of any spirituality and think that Christianity's all bullshit and still be the head of the church! That's madness surely. Why is the head of the Church of England not elected by members of the general synod based on their spirituality? What a crazy radical idea that is! Can you imagine if we had a rule banning the prime minister from being a Muslim? It would be thought intolerable by the people and quite rightly so (although the way the British political system is it doesn't seem likely that we'll have a Muslim party leader any time soon.)

There are though several arguments that people use for the existence of the monarchy. The most popular are:

1. "They perform an amazing public service." So would you if you were given a job for life that paid a fortune and all you really had to do was to walk about waving, going on holidays an staying in the best accommodation and having people over for dinner. If you offered me that job I'd be the best public servant you ever saw. Would you suggest that a President wouldn't perform an amazing public service? Maybe not, but then we could vote that person out of office if they didn't. The Monarch is there for life and unaccountable.

2."Well, you wouldn't want a president Blair would you?" This one particularly gets me. For a start there's no evidence that Tony Blair would run for such a position (although I really don't think anything that man does would actually surprise me). And let's face it, even if he did run, do you really think that after Iraq the British people would even vote for him? Of course not, he'd have to spike our water with LSD and run on a platform of £1000 for every vote to even stand a chance.

3. "But they're great for tourism." This is one that has never been proven. Of the top 20 unpaid attractions in England in 2012 according to Visitengland not one royal residence was on it! That's how vital it is. I hardly think that we need the royals to get people to visit Britain. Flamingo Land is more of an incentive to visit Britain than the monarchy (it's right up there on the top ten).

4. "They promote trade and industry." Really? Where is the evidence that the fact that Britain is in the top five economies in the world, the G8 of industrialized nations in the world and that London is a major world finance centre. Now what part of that is down to the royals? I'll make it simple. None whatsoever, the evidence simply doesn't exist.

5.  "They represent us abroad." Given the racist comments that we've already mentioned I somehow don't think that they particularly portray Britain in a positive light. Sure the Americans love a good royal occasion but they have a constitutional republic. Do you think Americans watch a royal wedding and think to themselves "Well darn it I wish they were still head of state here." Of course they don't because they got out!

6."The royals are 'above politics'." Seriously? Why doesn't one of his advisers go and tell Prince Charles that then? Because that is a memo that that man clearly didn't get. Here's a bit of proof. On August 13th 2013 Prince Charles faced a Commons inquiry into political influence. The committee was charged to look into reports that since the Tory/LibDem coalition took power Charlie held thirty-six meetings with ministers.

Look, it's very simple. It makes literally no sense to have people in a privileged position simply because of the family that they were born into, it's ludicrous. You don't have to love your captors who steal your money, without your consent and basically do what they like with the blessing of the deluded masses. They don't care about you or enhance your life or your country. They care about themselves and keeping the stranglehold they have on the British people. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the British people matter to them emotionally, they don't. The British people matter to them financially. And that's it. They've had a free ride for so long and there's no way they're going to get off their own personal gravy train. I think we can turn to our old friend Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh for an insight into what they really think of us when he turned to then Paraguay dictator General Stroessner (a man who literally committed genocide) and said: “It’s a pleasure to be in a country that isn't ruled by its people.”