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.
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 Van 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 )
In 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.