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 electionstook 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.
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 ofDumbarton ( 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.
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 Glasgow 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.
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.
1) They’re unreformed snobs. You are supposed to sycophantically BOW or CURTSEY when you meet these thick dullards. I mean, c’mon people, show some self respect. Brits strut about claiming they take No-shit from anyone yet grovel and tug their forelock when faced with Prince Andrew’s beefy visage ? If your inner serf can’t help it and you do want to bow – be consistent, and bow to every posh rich aristocrat you meet. If you can’t grovel in person, and you want to write to the queen – the official website recommends you sign off with ‘I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant’.
Wiggo shows what a Rebel He Is, by, er…kneeling and bowing at the Establishment Petting Zoo
2) They’re EXPENSIVE and our funds are used to keep them in pampered luxury. Of course the BBC will trot out the old Buckingham Palace bollocks about ONLY £36 million a year ( even that – for ONE FAMILY !) equating it with costing a few pennies per ‘umble serf per week. This is deeply disingenuous, but of course, they face no scrutiny. Other European monarchy’s cost much less. Republic ( yes, you should join ) estimate that the true cost to taxpayer- including security, and royal visits is at least 9 TIMES that at nearly £300m. And for this, they get servants to squeeze toothpaste onto their toothbrush
3) They’re EMBARRASSINGLY CRAP AT THEIR “JOB”. So basically, their job is to nod and smile and be pleasant – how come the queen is such a sour faced trout every-time she appears ? Of course BBC multi-cam directors don’t often cut to her dour dish, but occasionally a revealing shot slips through and she often looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp. I mean, fair enough, if I was watching a sycophantic sex offender singing a crap song, I too might be bored, but Liz, for fucks sake, it’s your job to at least look like you’re enjoying sitting on your arse in the finest seat at your party / the Olympic opening ceremony / new year at the millennium dome. We only catch a glimpse of the Crown Frown inadvertently on live TV spectacles, and the press only print pics of beaming Betty. As for royal diplomacy, well, Charles just compared Putin to Hitler, and if you’re looking at them as role models, then there’s Prince Andrew, who’s repulsive paedophile friend flew a vulnerable teenage girl across the world for a private meeting with Andrew. Crap at events, crap role models. That only leaves waving. They can wave from luxury limos, I’ll give them that.
4) They’re Naff. I mean some tolerate them as – supposedly – They Bring In The Tourists. This is highly dubious in any case, but my point is… just look at them – do you want the UK being defined globally by a sycophantic culture
of deference to some corn-beef cheeked inbred toffs ? Do intelligent England fans not cringe at every international where they got to sing about ‘send her victorious / happy and glorious / long to reign over us’ ? If you’re not cringing already, here’s an American giving the whole thing a kicking….
5) They Cement the 1% – repeat after me – “the thickest, laziest, dumbest royal will be given more influence and respect than the smartest most hardworking person I know…”. You and I can never be royal ( cue ), and They can never be sacked. They are at the top of the class pyramid. They get promoted in the military. They cheat at school. They secretly think people should not try to rise above their station. And sadly, lots of feeble minded forelock tuggers think This Is The Natural Order Of Things. The whole ‘tradition’ argument, their enormous wealth, and the ridiculous idea that we must automatically respect them acts as a useful fig leaf for a society where the richest are not challenged nor asked to redistribute.
6) It’s Cruel – a tiny bit of sympathy for them here – they’re born into a feudal freakshow. That wee baby George has almost no say in his future – his course in life is to be a Windsor. The boy who’s born to be king, is cursed. Any parent ( with the amount of money William & Kate have) worth their salt would up and leave.
7) This photograph
Please share this article were ‘soft monarchists’ can read it. The Windsors get effusive praise almost every day from every newspaper, and nobody makes the argument against their duffness. We need to rattle the golden cages….
One of the problems of being ANTI-monarchist is that you’re essentially defining yourself as Against Them. A Negative Force. It’s sort of exhausting, curmudgeonly, bad karma. On royal bank holidays, you’re the Pain-In-The-Arse griping about the Windsors as you quaff a sneaky wee beer under the bunting ( note. there’s no bucking funting where I live). You’re the one offending the Nice Oul’ granny who likes Kate.
And when the media do pay lip-service to republicanism (almost never) we’re portrayed as quaint eccentrics, with outlandish views ( worth a listen to this mad monarchist from about 3.20). Bizarrely, it’s often framed as evidence of how jolly good sports monarchists are – sort of Isn’t Britain Bloody Great Because We Tolerate Those Who Question Her MAJESTY….
Part of the problem is that the positive case for a Constitutional Alternative ( I know…yawn right ? ) can’t be condensed into a pithy tweet or retort. I’ve tried.
But it’s good to plant the seed of an alternative UK, a Head Of State.
I say this because the as soon as you mention an elected President the monarchists veins begin to bulge and wee foamy bits of spittle appear on their trembling lip until they play their Ace Card…
“What ? I suppose you’d prefer PRESIDENT BLAIR ?”
This is an utterly feeble line of attack and in fact an insult to the electorate. As if that’s the best option. As if the trauma of being abandoned by the Windsors would put the public into such a depression that they’d immediately vote for a war mongering lying politician that the majority of them hate. When some monarchist clown pipes up with the President Blair line it simply affirms that they’ve never had the imagination to contemplate any alternative to the monarchy.
So if not Blair, then who ?
I remember years ago some columnist writing – why don’t we make Michael Palin our head of state ? He seems like a lovely man, he’s self effacing and polite. He’s good at meeting people from other countries without spouting lazy racist stereotypes, he smiles a lot, drinks tea and is kinda funny. I don’t care who our first elected head of state is ( or indeed, if we need one), but the stardust Michael Palin thought is a useful one just to contrast with the turgid spectacle of the Windsors double-breasting their way through the next century.
Or Clare Baulding. I mean, OBVIOUSLY I can’t bear her Barbour-Jacketed Top Girl schtick- but y’know – she’s like an uber Windsor only more skilled with the media. Horses, poshness, sport, communicates. And she’s gay which gives a bit of international kudos (there’s certain places in Empire she couldn’t visit).
Or…anyone really.
A president could serve ten year terms, or retire without it being ‘a constitutional crisis’. President’s can be black, gay, disabled, catholic, muslim, eccentric, transexual – all those things that the Daily Mail would scream about if the Windsor family showed any sign of. A president would be entitled to more personal privacy – after all, the press have an absolute right to sniff around the Windsors private life because of the unignorable fact that the Head of State is dependent on bloodline. If they’re shagging around, it’s a perfectly valid story.
A president would also want the job, as opposed to some poor intellectually feeble snob out of his depth forever moaning that he doesn’t get enough influence on politics.
And it wouldn’t cost us so much. They could have one palace, instead of 8. They would have met real people before, and not have been brought up surrounded by flunkeys.
Of course, we’d get a duff Head of State occasionally – but….we do anyway. And if we get a Boris, we can always vote him out.
Finally, in these political times, consider that the queen gets £13m annually, and Prince Charles gets £19m from the Duchy of Cornwall.
Michael D Higgins, the poet president of Ireland has a salary of €270,000.
One of his first acts when elected…. was to reduce it to €207,000.
Of all the laughable falsehoods about The Windsors, the idea that they are apolitical is the most mendacious.
Apolitical ? In a Land Owning-Fox-Hunting-Posh Worshipping-Class-Structure-Entrenching-Public School Promoting-Army-Lovin-Aristocrat-justifying-Red-white-and-blue-patriotism type way? Apolitical in the way that reinforces the idea of a class system where those at the top deserve their status because they DO RIGHT? Remind you of any political outlook?
Their very existence is a deterrent to progressive social change, they are a mascot for the 1%, always have been, always will be, no matter how many faux matey Harry’s Just One o’ The Lads type photo-bullshit they do in The Sun.
So, they’re a massive icon of traditional right wing establishment thinking, seeding the idea that Things Cannot Be Any Other Way. That is bad enough….
But the dim Windsor family ( go on, count those A-levels… ) interfere politically behind close doors, and occasionally, in the open.
Prince Charles, of course, famously interferes, championing a whole host of -mostly moronic -causes. Even when he’s on the right track, he has no right to interfere. That’s the deal. So whilst I agree with Chazza about the environment, as a Windsor he has no right to voice an opinion. More on the Republican’s Great Hope another time.
Instead, lets look at Betty Windsor’s meddling in last years Scottish Independence Referendum – an absolute straight down the line abuse of power. It’s an outrage, but of course, the sycophantic scribblers just cheered louder.
With the polls tight, and 4 days to go in the most exciting democratic event in UK politics, which could enable radical change….Betty went to church in Aberdeenshire.
For the first time in 12 years, the press are invited – fancy that ! Betty comes out – and highly unusually – fancy that ! she goes for a walkabout outside the church. The Police then “invited press to observe exchanges” ( this is almost completely verboten – fancy that ! ), and queeny “warns” an onlooker – who prefers not to be named ( fancy that ! )- that Scots should “think very carefully about the future”.
Of course, it wasn’t a spontaneous remark ( the fact that there’s wriggle room suggests it’s been written with spin doctors ) but with the BBC & tabs in full British Unionist Cry she didn’t need to spell it out.
So there you have it. Regardless what you think of the referendum, the queen deliberately and consciously interfered. She tried to sway the most important vote in UK politics for years. The establishment was threatened, and she intervened on the side of the establishment.
There as almost no criticism. No journalists was bold enough to ask her if she’d interfered.
Most of the people who voted No, were older, and richer.
David Cameron phoned her with the result, and she “purred” down the line.
Boak.
Boak Boak Boak Boak Boak.
They don’t interfere in politics. Except when they do.
took 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.
Glasgow Hospital was 
revoltingsubject 