Gawd save the Queen from getting involved.

If you have a long political memory, you may remember that, during the Scottish independence referendum, those who suggested that David Cameron’s government had intervened to get the Queen to make a statement favourable to the Better Together (remain) campaign were dismissed as cranks, conspiracy theorists and crackpots. 

That’s OUTRAGEOUS!!!! They were told in capital letters with multiple exclamation marks because if you’re going to affect to be outraged you may as well go the whole hog. The Queen is NEUTRAL!!!! That’s what being British is all about and the fact you can even think to the contrary shows that you are vile, untrustworthy people. How DARE you despicable nationalists impugn the neutrality of Her Majesty who has never, never, NEVER had a political thought in her entire life. Or indeed any thought that didn’t involve horses or protecting her second son from accusations of being pally with a paedophile. (OK, that was a cheap shot, I'll admit but I'm inwardly riled about the whole affair).

What Liz did in response was to tell a random royalist punter that people ought to “think very carefully (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)” before casting their vote in the referendum. This was taken in the spirit in which it was intended by the BBC and the rest of the British media. It was the sort of “you need to think very carefully about that” you’d get from your mother if you had just told her you intended to get a facial tattoo and she knew that if she’d said “For god’s sake don’t be such an idiot” that you’d go ahead and do it just to annoy her. This is because, even though the form of the words “think very carefully” are in themselves studiously neutral, no one has ever been told to “think very carefully” by another person who shares their belief that they are doing the right thing.

That’s exactly how the Queen’s words were presented by the media. She knew that is what they’d do. There was no intervention from the palace to clarify that the Queen meant that both sides in the debate needed to think very carefully, or that what she meant was that she hoped that both sides in the debate should carefully consider their positions. She was quite happy that her intervention should be used as an aid to the Better Together campaign. That’s always exactly how it was intended.

And now we’re hearing reports from the palace that the Queen is channelling Victoria and is not amused by David Cameron’s none too surprising revelation. Apparently there is “an amount of displeasure” about the former Prime Minister’s admission. I’ll bet there is, quite a large amount too. But it’s not displeasure at having intervened in a democratic debate, it’s displeasure at having been found out. Coming as it does on top of the crisis provoked by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s decision to abuse the royal prerogative and prorogue Parliament in order to escape democratic scrutiny, it’s a very bad time for anyone to be shining the spotlight on the monarch’s true role in politics.

We have been told this week that LBJ lied to the Queen in order to prorogue Parliament, when in fact she was well aware of what he was doing and why he wanted Parliament to be prorogued. The dogs in the street knew the real reason. All of Parliament knew the real reason. The judges in the highest court of Scotland knew the real reason. Everyone knew the real reason. It is ludicrous to suggest that a monarch who has been dealing with Prime Ministers since the early 1950s didn’t know the real reason too. Indeed there have even been rumours that the Palace planned the entire affair with Downing Street.

This is far bigger than the decision of a deeply conservative member of the British establishment, indeed the very figurehead of the British establishment, to intervene against Scottish independence. That development was always entirely predictable, and she will do exactly the same the next time round. However the next time round, and there will be a next time, the SNP will be able to assert that there has been political intervention citing David Cameron as evidence that opponents of independence had done it before. They will no longer be able to be dismissed as conspiracy theorists for making the allegation.

What this is really about however, is the systematic weakness of the collection of laws, conventions, traditions, and precedent which together comprise the British constitution. An unelected head of state is not, and cannot be, any sort of guarantee against undemocratic actions on the part of the executive. An elected head of state (our president?) would have told LBJ where to get off if he had approached her or him with the proposal to prorogue Parliament for such nakedly political, anti-democratic and self-serving ends. Instead of placing the protection of democracy as its paramount concern, Buckingham Palace had as its priority the minimisation of damage to the Queen’s reputation.

It is one thing when an extremely expensively funded head of state has no political influence and is merely a decorative figurehead. It is quite another when that head of state does have political influence, but those of us who pay for the privileges and luxurious lifestyle of her and her family are not allowed to know what that influence is. Then the monarch shifts from being merely a massive waste of public money, to becoming a massive waste of public money and a danger to democracy. The real scandal here is not that LBJ lied to the Queen, it’s that the entire British constitution rests upon the lie that the head of state has no political influence. The real scandal is that the Queen is a sham head of state. She cannot act as a constitutional president and force rival politicians to look for ways out of a national emergency. She cannot insist that the prime minister obeys the rules, because there are too few rules in Britain and too many fuzzy, unenforceable conventions.  And the trouble with conventions is that they can be twisted by any leader unscrupulous enough to insist that others must obey the conventions they break. Once the Brexit crisis is over, there will be an enormous job of work blocking up the loopholes that have allowed LBJ to abuse his power. Assuming, that is, we ever get out of the Brexit crisis and have the energy left to tackle any job of work again.

Three things that are irritating me today

A few things that are irritating me at the moment. Maybe they resonate with you? Or not? Perhaps your mind is on higher things.

No one really knows what is going to happen next April when we leave the EU. I don't. You don't. They don't. But if we had a government that knew the first thing about governing, we would already know the terms of our leaving. Instead we have a set of genuinely incompetent and ignorant fools “inebriated with the exuberance of their own verbosity” as Disraeli once said (of Gladstone, I think). So we know sod all and we know that they know sod all as well…about anything.

Of course, there's politics, gamesmanship and brinkmanship at work. Everyone will try to come to some sort of agreement on the most important aspects of trade and the mutual recognition of basics like driving licence and insurances, so that goods can move from Europe to this benighted island. But, let’s be fair here, the last minute cobbling together of something is hardly the basis of a robust policy. Rearrange the following into a well known phrase or saying: brewery in organise piss couldn't a up a.

Much has been made in some quarters of the fact that in October one of Andrew Saxe-Coburg Gotha’s daughters is getting married. She is styled and titled Her Royal Highness, Princess Eugenie of York. She is, or so I'm told, 9th in line to the throne and has absolutely not the remotest chance of getting it. She does no public duties at all. She does, however, go on a lot of holidays. It seems to be her main claim to fame. However, she has decided that she wants an open carriage procession through Windsor, just like her cousin Harry (5th in line) got. As far as I’m concerned she can have open carriage processions through Bratislava, Blaenau Ffestiniog and Redruth if she wants. Just the same as anyone else can if they have the money. The trouble is that this princess and her pushy father, Airmiles Andy, the ever-expanding Old Duke of York, wants us to pay for all the security that will involve, at a cost of around £2 million.

I have no idea how much the royal family is worth but I bet that they can afford to pay for this nonsense themselves, and when people are dying of poverty on the streets of London, I find it offensive that the government is prepared to spend that much money on some spoiled posh girl whose claim to fame is going on holiday. The usual, “oh, but think of the money that it will bring in in tourism in London” won’t wash with this one. I doubt if many people have even heard of her and I shouldn’t think that most people are in the least interested in her nuptials. I'm certainly not. 

I doubt many people would argue that Theresa May is the worst Prime Minister in living memory… and probably a good deal before. She’s a dithering, wobbly, weak, croaky, cartoon character, who has no control of her party or of her MPs or of her orange-coloured bedfellows in the DUP. She’s at odds with everyone, here, in Europe and in the USA. I think she is utterly useless at being PM. My nan’s cat could do a better job and he’s dead. And yet, despite all that, Corbyn comes in a poor second to her in a recent YouGov poll for the best person to be Prime Minister. It’s interesting that the most popular vote was neither of them. And just when we needed leadership more than we have needed it for 70 years.

I do love a nice birthday party..........apart from..

Svmer is icumen in
Lhude sing cuccu

 Yes, summer is certainly coming in and the cuckoos are arriving early in the shape of the frenzy being whipped up by the Queen's 90th Birthday celebrations. It's a time for much frothing at the mouth: from the Royalists, who love this sort of thing and from the Republicans who are booking their Eurostar tickets for June. Going anywhere. Please, anywhere.

The request has gone out on behalf of Mrs Windsor: "Please come to my birthday party. It’s a really big one. My 90th! What a great thing to celebrate. To acknowledge how jolly busy my life has been, I’m inviting along all you special people who work for the hundreds of wonderful charities to which I lend my name. There’s just one thing. It will cost you £150 for the privilege. Each".

You really would have thought that someone at Team Windsor would know that it is terrible bad form to charge people to attend one’s birthday party? It's billed as Britain’s Biggest Street Party, if The Mall can ever be described as a street. Ten thousand people from the 628 national and Commonwealth charities of which the Queen is patron will be invited. Each charity will have to pay £1,500 for a table of 10 people. There will be 1,000 tables. Amazingly, some charities seem slightly lukewarm about shelling out hard-won cash so they can attend their patron’s big day. Ungrateful lot! But there is a silver lining inside that particular cloud, for charities can “sell on” 40 per cent of their tickets. Brilliant! Forget about the volunteers. Enter the open market, where tickets will be flogged to people who won’t blanch at coughing up £150. Even if they have zero connections to the charity. So this “once-in-a-lifetime” event quite probably will not be attended by the kind of people who support the Cornwall Air Ambulance or the Royal Home for Discarded Retainers or whatever charity at all, but by corporate fat cats who would jump at the chance of having a 90th birthday poncho or nodding corgi as a souvenir.

And in case you didn't know, Peter Phillips is organising the event. Yes, the Queen’s grandson is in charge. Phillips admits he is being paid an “undisclosed” fee for organising the do, selling tickets and rustling up money from sponsors. So people who work for Great Ormond Street Hospital, Cancer Research UK, Macmillan Nurses etc will pay a relation of the Queen to organise a party for the Queen. Nice one. I do hope none of the charities I support will get sucked into this charade. Because if they do, they may find themselves one donor short.

It’s almost as daft as the notion of getting everyone to spend their spare time walking around with bin liners, picking up rubbish from the streets in an attempt to make our filthy nation look clean for our Queen’s big day, lucky people that we are. Oh, wait a moment… Yes, another bright idea for we serfs to show our loyalty. As the publicity says "What better way could we show our gratitude to Her Majesty than to clean our country?". As we are told so often by Posh Dave and his mates that "we are all in this together", I'll join in when I see Mrs Windsor setting a good example and putting on one's Marigolds.

You thought it was 2015? Think again: Ruritania rides into town

I was going to ignore it but it really is something that sets my pulse racing. However, as I've already said everything I want to say on the topic, I thought I'd rerun something (with just a few minor tweaks) I wrote around this time in 2013. And I still stand by every word. Perhaps the current furore over the problems with our first-past-the-post system will see the end of all this? Here's hoping.

It's that time of the year again when the issues to be presented to Parliament in the next session are announced and what a weird and anachronistic way to do it. One of the less attractive features of the British is our pathological need to ritualise tradition and today's State Opening of Parliament is a brilliant example of this. A wonderfully over-the-top gothic pantomime of epic Hollywood proportions. The Queen (gawd bless her) processes in state from Buckingham Palace to the Houses of Parliament in a glittering coach, flanked by ranks of the Household Cavalry. In an elaborate ceremony with all the Crown Jewels on display, she reads out a list of government bills from the throne in the House of Lords. Only the British could still be doing this sort of thing in the 21st century! Either us or some tin-pot dictator with galloping delusions of grandeur!

It’s a colourful ceremony of seemingly ancient rituals (but they are not as old as you might think) where all the symbols and offices of the constitution come together under one roof. The Lords gather in their ermine robes and the Commons are summoned to attend in a famous door-slamming ritual played out by Black Rod ((by tradition, the Queen cannot enter the Commons). It is amazing how little things have changed in parliament over the last two centuries! It’s a grand pageant set in elaborate 17th century costumes of wigs, breeches, tights and ruffs. Pure high camp drama. The Crown, the Cap of Maintenance (the what?!), the Dutch Cap of Prevention, the Cruel Cap of Benefits (I'm sorry, I made the last two up. I just couldn't help myself) and the Sword of State make an appearance along with officials with extravagant titles like Garter King of Arms and, a particular favourite of mine, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant! The camp splendour of the royal procession through Parliament is quite a sight. The uniforms, gowns, robes and the Crown jewels themselves are spectacular. More Ruritanian pantomime than serious government procedure.

The Queen finally takes her place on the Throne (titter, titter) in the House of Lords and the Commons file into the chamber. The Tories looking smug and, I'm glad to see, most SNP and Labour MPs appearing suitably bewildered by the occasion. The speech (and it's not any old speech, it's the Gracious Speech and is read from a goat-skin vellum scroll**) is a turgid list of Government business and legislation, prefaced with a regal, “My government will…”. It’s dull and no one pretends otherwise - despite the fact that what's on this year's menu is potentially inflammatory.  As soon as the speech is complete, the Queen and her entourage process all the way back again (no, not backwards - sadly they spoil things by turning around) and the politicians get down to the serious business of making soundbites and point scoring - sorry, I meant to say the serious business of debating.

The one thing you can’t help noticing is how undemocratic the whole thing is. Only a third of those in attendance, the House of Commons, is elected by we plebs. The rest are hereditary or appointed. Within the ceremony, the Commons are conspicuously the least prominent. During the speech MPs (our representatives, remember we just voted them in) crowd in at the back of the room -rather like naughty school children, it's always struck me. Of course, it could be argued that any ceremony that makes politicians stand at the back must be a good thing!

However, there is one element that is totally missing from all of the above. The people. Any government presentation outlining upcoming intentions and priorities should, in the modern world (Hey - it's 2015 already or maybe Black Rod and Rouge Dragon Pursuivant haven't noticed?), be aimed at us, the electorate. Strip away the constitutional flummery and you’re left with a governing party stating what it’s going to do in the upcoming parliament. That’s important, and it should be presented to the people in a clear, unambiguous way. It's weird that a day of such high politics should start with such an archaic royal ritual. How long is all of this going to last. Will we see a radical overhaul at the end of the current reign ? Will a forward looking King Charles scale it down or abolish it all together? Probably not.

OK, so it’s a bit of constitutional glitter that pomp and pageantry junkies (and tourists) love. But does it really add any value to government in the 21st century? Would we not be better off with a State of the Union style speech to parliament and people by the Prime Minister? Isn't that what a representational democracy demands? Isn't that what the electorate deserve?

** I was being a little economical with the truth here. It is not on vellum anymore. It is on "goatskin parchment paper" but, confusingly, it's not actually made from goatskin. However it is very high quality, thick paper, which is why the ink takes several days to dry, and it then needs to be bound into a booklet, before being sent on to Her Majesty for signing. I wonder if she uses joined-up handwriting for this?

The Lion King cometh........

The programme for the forthcoming season at the Theatre Royal in Plymouth dropped through our letter box a couple of days ago.  As you can see from its front cover, a production of The Lion King features prominently in what they have to offer.

I've heard that it's spectacular and worth going to see but it's really not my sort of thing. Having said that, if it contains scenes such as the one below, I could be tempted...........

Confession time...........

Everyone has dark guilty secrets and I am certainly no exception. Let me tell you about one of mine that I'm particularly ashamed of. It's hard to believe but every now and again I am driven to satisfy my inner Royalist. Sometimes I do this by quietly singing God Save the Queen in my greenhouse, sometimes I do it by wearing my Queen Mother look-alike outfit; other times I do it by looking at Highgrove House's website to see what I can do to help out the impoverished Prince of Wales by buying something from his on-line shop.

There is so much there to satisfy the purse of any ardent Royalist. Me? I was particularly drawn to a Coronation Baby Hamper - a snip at £215. For that you get a small wicker basket with leather straps containing:
* Limited edition red and gold embroidered Coronation decoration.
* Fine bone china Coronation golden carriage mug.
* Lambswool and angora Coronation baby blanket.
* Fully jointed Baby Bear made with antique gold mohair.
As they rightly point out, this would be a gift to be treasured for years to come. It's a pity that I'm such an uncaring grandfather, otherwise I'd buy one for our recent arrival, Molly, to puke over.

I must say that I doff my cap to Charlie Boy for giving us the opportunity to buy so much commemorative tat. No, he's not cashing in on the birth of his grandson. He's just giving us plebs the opportunity to show our loyalty - and empty our purses and wallets. Royal Baby Commemorative Pillbox anyone?

Hooray for Steve Bell...

Taken from today's Guardian. I wonder if the Cambridge's will be asking for the original?

I agree with Dave................sort of.

David Cameron announced yesterday that most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it. I'd be with you 100%, David, if you extended this to include the endless, vacuous reporting of the birth and infancy of the Royal baby.

From the disproportionate journalistic feeding frenzy I saw briefly last night, it's clear that images of the Royal Trio are about to take over the internet and I think that immediate measures are necessary to protect the sanity of the reasonable (ie, me). Without immediate action, this country we love is going to become a worldwide hub for the over-sentimentalisation and exploitation of a young woman and her baby. Royal birth tat, anybody?

Posh Dave has called for some ‘horrific’ internet search terms to be blacklisted. Can I suggest that these make sure that no results would be produced for searches such as ‘Royal baby names’, ‘Prince Cambridge feeding regime’, ‘Duchess of Cambridge pretty dress lovely gorgeous style icon’ and 'What would Saint Diana think of her Royal grandson'?

Building on Dave's suggestion, perhaps we can get the internet providers to include some Republican-friendly filters for their customers as soon as possible so that access to the damaging royal coverage can be restricted to only those who choose it. The filters would apply to all devices linked to the affected home Wi-Fi network and across the public Wi-Fi network wherever sane people are likely to be present. Customers who do not click on either option - accepting or declining royal coverage - will have the restricting filters activated by default. It's got to be a vote winner, Dave!

It's all so exciting.

I don't know about you but I've found the Sun's Royal Hospital cam incredibly exciting. So exciting that I'm having to take a break to calm down. What to do? I know I'll watch something only marginally less interesting - like watching paint dry. I'm afraid I could only find this rather lacklustre video. The story line is flat and the producer is obviously trying to gloss over the fact that this is the best he could put up for us. Matt, for that's his name, either needs to brush up on his film-making skills or can it.

 

Upon reflection, I've done Matt a disservice. It's actually a lot more exciting that watching the Royal baby stuff.

Let joy be unconfined.............

Some people may be watching the Ashes on TV but I'm glued to the Sun's Royal Baby Monitor channel which is streaming live from outside of Paddington Hospital. Here's the link.  Don't bother to e-mail, text or call, I'm not moving from my sofa until the Royal Sprog arrives. Now this is what I call reality TV! Hooray for technology and Hooray for the Windsors.

Royal Red Flag to a Republican Bull!

Today we had the above letter from Prince Charles under his title of His Royal Highness Charles Philip Arthur George, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Chester and Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland. Actually, between us we had four identical letters from Prince Charles under his title of His Royal Highness etc...

And what was this letter about?  It refers to an application by Prince Charles (under his title of His Royal Highness etc...) to register his ownership of the mines and minerals in the Manor of Stoke Climsland in which our property lies. By way of explanation, sometime in the mid 1300s the Duchy of Cornwall took upon itself to claim all the mineral and mining rights in Cornwall. These passed into law in 1846 following the passage of the Duchy of Cornwall (No 2) Act in 1844. This means that Prince Charles (under his title of etc....) has the right to mine and extract minerals from our property. We've always known this and it's a feature of living in Cornwall.  So why the letter now?  The Duchy has said it is having to officially register its ancient rights as part of a new drive by the Land Registry to record all mineral rights by October 2013. "The Duchy of Cornwall is having to register its mineral rights with HM Land Registry in order to preserve them for the future," a Duchy spokesman has said "This does not mean that the Duchy has any intention at this time to work the minerals. The Duchy has owned these mineral rights for many centuries - it is simply a case of the Duchy registering its existing rights." Well, that's alright then. No, it certainly is not.

We are given two options. Give our consent, in which case we can tell them by e-mail. Or we can object, in which case we have to register our objection in writing, giving chapter and verse of the legal basis of our objection and proof that we own the property in question. Not that they want to make it difficult to object, of course. My first reaction to the letter was one of surprise (why now?) followed very quickly by quiet outrage.  This is 2013 and something so archaic and feudal has absolutely no place in a so-called modern democracy. This point will be the basis of my objection.

The Duchy of Cornwall enjoys a curious variety of rights. Some of them might be regarded as “charming” by some but many are the source of real economic benefit and give the Duchy a privileged position with regard to both the creation and application of law. To we republicans, it is unarguable that the Duchy should be subject to greater public scrutiny and stripped of its privileges.  Until that happy day dawns, oi, Charley Boy, get orff my lawn!

I say, chaps, wouldn't it be spiffing if we started digging in the middle of the Parsons' lawn?

 

Such japes! Time to don one's Bob the Builder's hat.