Harry & William – don’t pass on this curse to your kids…

Despite my punk republicanism, I’m not a big fan of criticising the royal kiddies. They’re children. They DID NOT have a choice.

Wee George, Charlotte, Louis and now Archie Parchie are blameless infants. But, due to the Monarchy, these kids fate is sealed..

Royal children are there to be scrutinised, judged, photographed, ridiculed, venerated, manipulated and intruded upon from the moment they are born until the moment they die (and beyond).

Their nursery teacher curtseys to them. Their schoolmates will whisper about them. They need security – think about that for a second – a little kid, due to being a symbol of UK, is inadvertently a target for terrorism. How can that ever be ok?

As teenagers, they smoke a joint and the world knows about it. Any potential schoolboy crush will be vetted by the security services. Paul Burrell was dispatched to the newsagent to buy Razzle when William and Harry were adolescents. Royal kids can’t aspire to any sort of normal life.

They are so obsessed with royal children they kiss dolls of royal children

Monarchy turns these kids into freaks.

And the people who created these conditions are the Royal family and the fans of royalty, who insist they have the right to intrude on a childs privacy. The stroppy Media Boo-Hoo-ing that went on about Archie’s christening is instructive. You’ve been born on stage wee man, and the Royalists DEMAND the right to coo and bubble over you.

Harry and William know all about this freakish life. With stiff, inhumane theatricality, they were made to walk behind their mothers coffin in front of millions. They’ve said it was torture, that people were grabbing at them.

So Royal boyos & their partners, here’s the thing.

Take your kids away. Don’t pass this curse onto your own children. You are very rich, very connected. Go live in a ranch in Africa, or California. It’s too late for you two – you’ll be in the public eye no matter what – but go now, and your kids stand a chance. And their kids might even be anonymous toffs.

I want rid of the monarchy for moral and political reasons, but fucks sake, monarchy is a brutal and cruel thing to inflict on your kid.

Please share on Facebook or Twitter or cut this out and drop leaflets from the sky .( But Facebook is better.)

Meghan is a good argument against the Monarchy.

Meghan is utterly eclipsing the rest of the whingey Windsors.

She’s smart. She is undeniably beautiful, she is mixed race, she is a feminist, she has a natural warmth compared to the frigid awkward one note Royal Family..

yeah…about that.

Ridiculously, one of the reasons that people are mesmerised by Meghan is that she can speak with some charm and humour. She can handle fame. She knows how to do an interview. The job of the royal family is to be smile, feign interest in ordinary people. and play up for the media.

Meghan exposes how utterly pathetic Harry, Kate, William, Charles, the Queen et al are at these fundamental aspects of their job. Think about Prince Charles and his hesitant mumbling whinges, his charisma bypass. Think of shy William blazering and balding around nodding earnestly. Watch as Harry almost shrinks when interviewed alongside his fiance…

Meghan is disruptive, albeit not on purpose.

Sycophantic royal reporters argue that she’s ‘modernising’ the Monarchy.’

No, she’s not. Her presences is exposing how drab and bad at they are at their job. Wags have dubbed the British Monarchy Celebrity Feudalism. Meghan is now the star turn. And if she is better at being a royal than the royals are….well…why don’t we follow this through and just get a load of attractive celebrities to be our figureheads ? The Netflix Crown is so much more entertaining than the British Crown. Lets just CAST them.

And recently a very nasty, reactionary tone to some of the reporting – as if HOW VERY DARE SHE COME ALONG AND BE SMARTER, BETTER LOOKING, AND BETTER AT CHARMING PEOPLE THAN OUR ENGLAND’S ROYAL FAMILY.

Uncle Andrew, what would you do if you met a young woman from America ?

Does anyone think she’ll still be here in a decade ? My objection to monarchy is primarily political, so I don’t wish unhappiness on anyone – but unlike Stepford Royal Wives – Meghan has history – a glam career in LA, with luxury friends and freedom. She’s lived a bit. She’s not a mute.

For now she’s imprisoned in a world of uptight Brits and stilted palace protocol. Obsessives watching her every move. But for the rest of her days ? Really. ? Draughty Balmoral in Aberdeenshire in 2022 ? Nope, she’ll go back to California sooner or later, and will long to see the back of the hunting, polo and public school dullard set. Maybe Harry will go with her.

So where’s the republican vitriol you’re asking ?

Of course, to anyone over 7, the whole idea of a Princess is preposterous, and a feminist Princess is an oxymoron. The ridiculous titles – I believe she’s the Duchess of Dumbarton ( here poor people, have some celebrity crumbs ) and the ostentatious wealth, clothes, wardrobe leave a bad taste. But try as I might I can’t resent Meghan the way I loathe the rest of the Windsors. In the same way that I don’t resent American tourists for being curious about royalty ( c’mon, tourism is about gawping at local oddities) but will happily mock British monarchists.

So to conclude….when the Palace burns and the royals are being forced out at the end of a pitchfork, I might get a wee selfy with Meghan – just before I lock the gates.

Our media is filled with relentless royal sycophancy. Please Facebook-asize and Tweet And Do your Shit.

Why I SUPPOSE YOU’D PREFER TONY BLAIR is a stupid thing to say….

Monarchists quickly run out of arguments when confronted with the very reasonable idea of an Elected Head of State.

So it foot stomping petulance they blurt out “Oh so I supposed you’d prefer President Blair ?”

So for clarity…

  • An elected Head of State would be elected – why do you presume your compatriots would all rush vote for a discredited figure like Blair ? Isn’t that a bit insulting ?
  • Whoever chose put themselves forward to be Head of State would face scrutiny and have to account for themselves. There would be justification. ( Emerging from a Windsor Vagina does not require anyone to explain themselves, nor volunteer )
  • Even if this unlikely scenario came to pass – President Blair – I actually WOULD prefer it, because I could campaign against him and argue that he’s not a suitable candidate and hopefully the next time the head of state electionsadolf-hitler-duke-and-duchess-of-windsortook place he would be gone. If Prince Charles confirms his status as a disastrous ol’ clown, there’s no real way his ‘subjects’ can hold him to account. Bear in mind that Edward was due to be King, and he was an Nazi Sympathiser. Only an American divorcee and his abdication saved the UK from a fascist leaning Head of State.
  • Finally look at our neighbours Ireland, they’ve had a good run of Presidents in recent years, who’ve stood up for the people, and occasionally offered guidance during national debates.

When you get into a discussion with a puce face monarchist, it’s worth sending them to this blog post when they bust out the PRESIDENT BLAIR idiocy.

Republic have a good site – Monarchy Myth Buster

And if you want to speculate about who COULD be President of the United Kingdom, here’s a little democratic pie I prepared earlier….

Scotland versus the Royal family

 

The royal family, should more accurately be called The London Royal Family. They never really leave their palaces in the exclusive parts of  London.

The (very dubious)  argument that they Are Good For Tourism should really read The Are Good For Tourism in Very Wealthy Parts of London.

There are however,  transparently patronising attempts to win favour with the ‘regions’ of their kingdom….

The Prince of Wales ( lives  in London )

The Duke of Edinburgh ( lives in London )

The Duchess of York ( lives in London )

not to mention the newly anointed…

Earl and Duchess of Dumbarton ( 175 Dumbarton Main Street – NAW !…only kidding. London. )

It’s a feeble distraction tactic by those who hold power. Could Duchess Meghan tell you a single fact about daily life in Dumbarton ?

But it is Scotland that’s most proving difficult for the PR spinners of the royal family. Because –  despite being forced to stump up £35m a year  – most Scots are not enchanted by the forelock tugging crap any more.

Rebellious Scots to Crush ( this is the 6th verse of God Save the Queen)

Some of our pals in England may wonder if Anti-Royal sentiment in Scotland is a symptom of a wider Anti-English feeling ?  Nope, not the case – for most Independently minded Scots, the idea of Independence is motivated by democratic self respect ( is Scotland a country? Yes it is. Should the people of a country have the right to elect their own government ? Yes they should. See ? ), and to mischaracterise it as Anti-English is like Gammon Gavin the golf club moron braying that Feminism Is Just An Excuse to HATE MEN.

People in Scotland (including many of the English people who live here)  want independence as a means to change society for the better.

dce3e43685081036e49c23057f2f9370

That week in the marines where Edward won all those medals. And his kilt.

And whilst the SNP leadership characterise an Independent Scotland as retaining the Monarchy, it’s fig leaf-  essentially trying to keep an older, more shortbread strain of Scottish electorate on board. Even campaigners for Scottish Independence don’t want to make Monarchy a foreground issue, because, why frighten off the hesitant pensioners and Sunday Post readers ?

But there’s very little love for the royal family in Scotland.

 

There was just ONE party in the entire country for Harry & Meghan’s wedding. There was no bunting for any of the royal weddings recently.  When a brand new edfd3e6a2ffb48b690140ed589e16280--scottish-independence-princeGlasgow Hospital was named after the queen, over 16,000 people signed a petition to object ( wrote about it here  ). The Scotland fans sang ‘Oh I’d rather have a Panda Than A Prince.” Only 41% of Scots are supportive.

So what can the Royal Family do ? Prince Charles regularly dreary’s himself up in a kilt and writes crappy tales about Lochnigar, but the effect is patronising, rather than ingratiating. It reminds Scots of The Laird, the Hunting Shooting and Fishing class who own Scotland with the result that  the landscape  is deserted so that they can gammon together and shoot things.

Central to all this is Balmoral. The Aberdeenshire castle has always been a key part of the Royals Love Scotland narrative.  When the royals stay at Balmoral, a piper plays outside every morning to wake them. So you know, they’re in touch with what life is like for people in Glasgow. In fact, the very romanticised, pantomime image of Scotland that Queen Victoria confected -has held Scotland back for years. We bought the Balmoralification of our culture, but not any more.

queennazi

Enchanting picture of the Queen at learning Bal-morality as a kid

The Firm also have an oncoming generational problem – do we really think that Harry and William will want to spend every wet September in rural Aberdeenshire ? I very much doubt it. An attempt to win favour was made by sending Prince William to St Andrews – and this is emphasised on every occasion – but St Andrews is hardly typical of Scottish life. Anyway, he didn’t like it.

And most significantly of all, the Queen politically interfered in the most important democratic event in Scotland’s modern history. The one rule of being a ceremonial monarch is don’t abuse your position.

She abused her position. Remember that.

None of this is tangible in the Relentless Grovel Fest that passes for royal journalism, but it’s happening on the ground. We’re on the road to a Scottish Republic ! ( but shhh…don’t tell anyone )

Everyone, across the UK, is welcome to my 2025 Balmoral Scotland Republic Party ( hopefully in the next 5 years ). We’ll put on Prince Charles’s old kilts and drink malt whisky and rifle through the attic searching for Seig Heil pictures.

Everyday is Royal Propaganda Day in the Media. But NOW you’re gonna RT this or Facebookise it or be Luke Skywalker engaging with The Force for the first time.

Share please & follow @unroyalreporter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The BBC & the Royal Family

The World-wide-web-super-highway is filled with angry people who foam and rage against the BBC. And yours truly, is not one of them. Public service broadcasting is a rare  and fragile thing, and though hugely flawed – don’t @ me – the BBC should be defended and saved from its worst impulses  ( otherwise it’s privatised telly –  Fox News & ITN for us all, for ever).

But royalty brings out the worst in the BBC. The broadcaster is at its most servile and unctuous, never kneeling when it can lie on the ground and drool at the green wellies of the nearest Windsor.

The royal fawning  is incessant and relentless. Every day, some trivial ephemera about Das Windsors No angle is too silly. Never hold power to account when you can grovel. It’s constantly reinforced – Everything The Royal Family Do is deemed Significant Enough To Be Celebrated.

Look below at the BBC’s Royal Charter – it’s  one of those establishment documents that tells you nothing but at the same time tells your everything….

charter

This is supposed to be a modern country

 

After the Hey-nonny-nonny-nonsense it states:

the BBC should accurately and authentically represent and portray the lives of the people of the United Kingdom today, and raise awareness of the different cultures and alternative viewpoints that make up its society.

So far so good. Hurrah for ‘alternative’ points of view. But  the charter then goes on to say…

The BBC should bring people together for shared experiences and help contribute to the social cohesion and wellbeing of the United Kingdom.

So Royal Weddings, Births, Speechifying, Deaths, Tours = shared experiences that are deemed to help contribute to social cohesion. And by social cohesion, I think what’s implied is docility. Circuses for everyone ( but you can read about the bread ).

Despite the fact that the majority don’t care about events like royal weddings, the BBC go to Def Fawn 1. Everything any royal commentator says is treated as completely credible, and the rarely  moments when a sceptical voice is invited to contribute, they are treated with scorn and their logical observations reacted to as if they were outrageous.

These days ‘National’ events are consolidated by almost weekly feudal porn likeseries The Queen: A Passion For Horses or Prince Charles dedicating an hour long episode of Countryfile to how great he is…, or even Prince Harry taking over The Today Programme.

Occasionally, something mildly contextualising will come up – such as a series called Reinventing the Royals -but it was pulled at the last minute, then broadcast 6 weeks later, after the royals had neutered any interesting content.

Do the BBC employ censors monitoring it’s output for the slightest hint of republican sentiment? Naw, they Make Staff do It Themselves. And so, critical voices get no airtime, and even journalists who cringe at what it does to the corporations credibility, must play along. I can’t imagine a senior BBC reporter being allowed to do what Michael Crick does here…

Royal Footage held by the BBC is strictly controlled (  editorial  compliance forms require producers to state if they plan to use any royal footage and in what context, which then has to be sanctioned ) – hence no repeat screenings for cringefests like  It’s a Royal Knockout.

The sad truth is the BBC is essential and complicit in the continuation of reverence for the Royal Family. They, more than anyone else, frame the narrative. Without BBC coverage, the monarchy fades away.

There is some hope. The BBC didn’t bother to cover Princess Andrews Daughter And that Posh Tequila Face guy’s wedding, which though hardly revolutionary, at least shows that public opinion can shift the dial a notch. And, amidst the 30 separate BBC Website updates – there was one that was at least not cheering but factual….

 

The point is, the BBC is suppose to reflect a diversity of opinion. It’s Your BBC, not just the 1%’s BBC. So rattle the cages. Visibly show disdain towards all this grovelling.

So please follow on twitter (@unroyalreporter) or share this CyberSemtex on Facebook and get into arguments with Fat Jeremy the Royalist in your office.

 

 

Top 5 BBC Royal Grovels

Barely a day goes by, with out some bum-clenching toadying nonsense about the royal family broadcast on the BBC. It’s relentless and it’s brain rot for the vulnerable.

Lets see what the BBC thinks we really need to know…

Woman Closes Door –  The BBC reported that a Woman closed a car door. Alert the Pulitzer committee.Screen Shot 2018-09-26 at 20.31.43.png

Boring Posh Couple Get on Tube – The BBC fawned at the very idea that Chaz n Dazed stepped out of their Bentley and deigned to slum it..

BBC Presenter Gleefully excuses Queen’s racism  – here, the BBC suddenly have an interesting royal story so…they quickly sweep it under the carpet. A grovelling guest recounts the time where the Queen met a foreign ambassador and declares   ‘I thought I was talking to a gorilla’. BBC Presenter, gives nervous hoot and describes such blatent xenophobia as  ‘cheeky’.  Will I Am doesn’t look too impressed.

If a working class person had said speaking to a foreign ambassador was like ‘talking to a gorilla’ on BBC1, can you imagine the outrage?

 

The Queen Lobbied The Home Secretary to Have A Man She Didn’t Like Deported – Wow – an actual news story. – not many  Abu Hanza fans about – but still the queen shouldn’t be interfering in justice like some Daily Mail gammon should she ?

WAIT….the BBC reached for it’s forelock & quickly APOLOGISED to the queen for daring to report an interesting insight.  Scoops 0  Sycophancy 1

Child Grows Up – Prince George is 1. Prince George Is 2. Prince George is 3. Prince George is 4. Prince George is 5.  – don’t bother clicking the links – I can assure you it’s a dull read. And, y’know, it’s sort of creepy – this child presented to us as if it’s the new Blue Peter dog.  Child Deprived of Normal Upbringing to Serve As Cute Mascot for Feudalism is a not a story I can find anywhere on the BBC.

The point is….it’s RELENTLESS.

And psychologically, it seeps in – the point is Everything That Posh Rich People Do is Very Important.

It’s not.

They’re not.

And this world of royal fetishists is right wing Jacob Rees Mogg culture, drip fed to the masses.

What can you do ? Share this article on Facebook & Twitter and print it off and slide it under the cubicle if you see Nicholas Witchell going for a royal poo.

nicholas-witchell-large

masticating for the royals

( update: I am going to add a list of unbelievably trivial royal stories as the bbc continue to publish them)

 

23rd  October – Prince harry drank something  People seemed pleased.

22nd October – a few people with red hair like Prince Harry. THANK YOU PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTERS MY LICENSE FEE HAS BEEN WELL INVESTED

18th October – Royal tour Non-Events.  They saw some things, she looked pretty. Lap it up proles.

17th October – In this truely moronic and dire report, some oul’ Aussie who won’t even go to see the royals, mouths some banal platitudes about the royals. This is utterly utterly dire. Why even publish this?

17th October – Boy rubs beard. 4th headline

14th November Prince CHarles likes posh food

Christmas Day – dull family go to church as usual

16th January – posh woman says some shit about pizzas

26 January – Queen plays game.

 27th February – woman speaks a bit differently

The Royal Family – above the law…

Some otherwise reasonable and savvy people, are are Mushy  Monarchists.

They talk the talk politically, but reserve the right to flop on the couch and wallow in a  a tedious documentary about the Queen’s best pals all being horses.

The Mushy Monarchists  justification runs thus…’oh come on it’s harmless pageantry and flags & good ol’ British tradition’. Such nonsense lets the upper classes sentimentalise inequality  & repackage unpleasant snobbishness as charming character traits.

But this whimsical narrative is shattered when members of the royal family are revealed to be above the law, meddling  and arrogant.

6476410131_6d93dc6eef_b

I’ll be the Judge

The laws don’t apply to the Windsors. Under UK law, the Sovereign cannot be prosecuted. Or even questioned apparently.

Prince Charles has long hung out with some dubious characters. Despite some desperate spinning by royal PR, Prince Charles’s  long friendship with Jimmy Savile is undeniable, his life guru Laurens Van Der Post impregnated a 14 year old girl ( lets not forget that Savile-and-Charles-660x553Van Der Post is Prince William’s godfather ). Recently, Charles sympathised with abusive bishop Peter Bell, lamenting the ‘monstrous wrongs that have been done to you’. He  gave the Abusive Bishop money, and then a house “not too far from here so you can come over more easily”. Aww. That’s nice.

Of course none of this association implies Prince Charles himself is guilty of anything so sinister – I am politically opposed to The Windsors, but no-one should be accused of anything so toxic unless there’s compelling evidence. So to be clear, I am not amongst the wilder fringes of the net insinuating against Charles.

But clearly, the legal process does not hold them to account.

Here we have a man who  no-one can question, but he readily admits he was deceived. A man who’s always ready to lecture us on ‘duty’, but REFUSED to give a legal statement to the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse.

Think about that for a second. An inquiry who’s stated aim is to ensure that children get ‘the care and protection from sexual abuse they need and deserve, now and in the future.’

Charles and legal staff REFUSE. A statement implies swearing an oath – and Charles lawyers shrugged, and said the court couldn’t compel him to release a statement. Why are they so concerned ?

Instead, they send a long letter, full of equivocation and ‘can’t remembers’ which was read out to everyones dissatisfaction.

One of the many things Charles couldn’t remember was who he was referring to in his letters when he told the Bishop he would  ‘see off this horrid man if he tries anything again’. How convenient.

After Savile, wasn’t there a collective moment when a shocked UK resolved that in the future, no stone would be left unturned, no matter who it upset ? Apparently not.

Before I bang the cyber gavel, , here’s a list of royal incidents where the current crop got away with it…

Prince Andrew rams gates to avoid 1 mile detour ( completely fine ).

Prince Harry out shooting, rare birds of prey shot in area…( nothing to see)

Prince Andrew goes to small house in London to meet with 17 year old girl who was trafficked across the Atlantic by a convicted paedophile ( seems legit )

_38495201_sketch150In fact the only court case where a member of Royal Family was held to account was when Princess Anne’s dog attacked a 7 year old and 12 year old, biting them on the collarbone and leg. Penalties for this crime could be a £5000 fine, 6 months in jail, and having the dog put down. Anne was told to pay £250 to each of the traumatised kids ( there’s no mention of an apology anywhere). The child biting bull terrier went home to eat steak. But a ended up eating one of the Queen’s corgis.

If you’re wanna be in the cool gang with the cool kids, please share this post on the Information Super Highway.