The Most Remarkable Thing

One group of us is mad. Maybe it’s us or maybe it’s the others but one of us must be.

“That’s the most remarkable thing I’ve ever seen”, said the commentator, as a boat floated down the Thames. How cruel of the BBC, to get someone to commentate on the Jubilee who’d never seen a boat before, or indeed anything as remarkable as a boat. They’ll probably get him to do the sailing at the Olympics next, so they can enjoy him hyperventilating as he gasps “Oh my God there’s LOADS of boats, they’re TRAVELLING through WATER, it’s a MIRACLE.”

For several days it’s gone on, presenters telling us about the truly marvellous overwhelming astonishing spectacle and wondering how the Queen manages to be quite so magnificent, until you feel they’re about to say ‘And she often beats Ronnie o’Sullivan over 35 frames of snooker, and she invented saucepans and can understand fish language. We are so so lucky she lets us have her as our Queen’.

Next week newspapers will publish photos of people who weren’t cheerful enough over the Jubilee weekend, telling the public ‘If you recognise any of these traitors ring our confidential hotline and get them arrested’. Then we’ll have a series of trials, with a judge growling “You are a disgusting thug who didn’t even have the decency to sing along to Obla di Obla da”, and handing out ten year sentences to set an example.

To be truly British we had to show our full range, by then being devastatingly sad about Philip being unable to go, even though he probably thought ‘Oh not Elton John again. I had enough of him at that funeral, I’ll pull the old dodgy bladder scam’.

But the oddest part is no one can explain what we were supposed to be celebrating. She’s been the Queen for sixty years, but all she has to do to be Queen is to be. As long as she exists, she’s the Queen, that’s how it works, it’s not like a boxing champion that has to keep seeing off challengers. If you’ve been an electrician for sixty years that’s worth celebrating, because you have to keep rewiring stuff to be one, but as long as she exists she’s the Queen. In effect people are spluttering ‘Isn’t she marvellous, still existing for us. Most of us wouldn’t have the stamina to keep on existing, but even at her age she puts in a full days existence seven days a week’.

That’s why royalists get in a tangle when they claim she’s doing a marvellous job, as if she’s earned her position on merit, having worked her way up after starting out as a humble princess.

But it would be churlish to deny a party, so next year we should do it all again, except for a random pensioner, with bunting and street parties and souvenir mugs and Huw Edwardes dribbling ‘There’s all of Ada’s family, waving from the balcony of her care home in Sunderland, she truly is the most remarkable woman there has ever been’.

79 Replies to “The Most Remarkable Thing”

  1. Absolutely brilliant. Exactly how I’ve felt. The media’s sycophancy and fawning over the whole event and the pro-monarchist bias would make any dictator blush.

  2. My favourite activity of the weekend was asking people what it was 60 years of – answers were:
    1) The coronation (Nope, 1953)
    2) Death of her father (Nope, much earlier in 1952)
    3) Her birthday (Nope, but close)

    Only one person had the correct answer of “It is held in June because the weather is nice”

  3. How right you are Mark. It’s so simple, yet the majority can’t see it. Why are most people so stupid? All the best to you.

    1. Alienation?Plus hierarchical system telling us daily we are inadequate, insignificant& generally crap in our own experience?So we have to hitch ourselves to an ‘illustriuos better ‘ to have the right& reason to celebrate? Any sane society and we’d have a 3 -day week and celebrate ourselves/each other …. our own lives would be celebrated not that of some inflated leech.(Just a theory but i’m working on it.)

    2. We’re ingrained from an early age to adhere to the class system, which is still quietly slumbering under the national psyche. From the second you drop into the world as a working stiff you’re taught that anyone with a Oxbridge accent should be ‘respected’, “Doff of yer cap, touch o’yer forlock. Yes sar, no sar.”. “Cor blimey! Gawd luv her Maj, marvellous ain’t she?”, if you lived on the very best living your subjects could pay for, you’d be in pretty bloody good shape too!

      Not even going to bother having a pop at the hypocritical red-top, gutter scum and their pseudo, obsequious fawning and grovelling!

  4. Actually we’re celebrating getting up the noses of the Republicans who hate the whole thing but can’t come up with a better alternative. My vote for this years biggest bore is the Olympics but as the majority seem to want it I shall quietly ignore it. I suggest you do the same.

    1. Oh Kate, you must sail through life like a Regatta boat in the rain. How I envy you and your smug certainty that an elitist hangover from the feudal system is far superior to any silly Republican suggestions, like, I don’t know, not having an unelected figurehead. I mean how could that possibly work? WHO WOULD WE PUT ON THE STAMPS!!??!!??

      1. Since the alternative to the monarchy would be an elected President, surely a nice lady who waves a lot and asks ‘Have you come far’ is preferable to a past their sell by date politician. President Tony Bliar must fill everyone with dread as must President Mandelslime. The point of a monarch is that they embody the country and don’t have political affiliations. By not having elections the role of monarch is non-confrontational and so easier for all parties to support.

        The foaming at the mouth of certain republicans has amused me this last month. It must be upsetting to realise how small a minrity you really are. With even the BBC having to sheath its pro-republic sentiments, even that ally was lost, albeit temporarily, to your cause.

    2. Beautifully put Kate. Yes it has been a Joy just listening to Radio 4 scrabbling to find someone/anyone willing to support the Republicans! Ah. Bless!
      As for the Olympics —- What Olympics?

  5. Talk about missing the point. It was a celebration of Britain and clearly many people are proud to be British. The facts remains that;

    1. The Royal family generate a net revenue for the UK
    2. Studies have shown that Monarchies have far less extreme political systems than many Federal states. Look at the USA for example; ridiculous political extremes. But would you say that Sweden, Netherlands, UK, Norway have anything but reasonably balanced societies.

    If anyone can tell why the Royal family is making their life worse than it otherwise would be, then I might be able to take their arguments seriously.

    1. 1. so do all public sector employees. Will we have a flotilla for them too?
      2. Interesting. Please provide links to these studies. And also google “Geert Wilders”, “Jimmie Akesson”, “Alan Lake EDL” and “Anders Behring Breivik”.

    2. I agree that there’s a vague sense of celebrating Britishness.

      The fact that Sweden, Netherlands et al have balanced societies is because they’re social democracies, rather than (meek when compared to the UK) monarchies. Saudi Arabia has a despotic royal family but is hardly a democratic paragon.

      How does the royal family make my life worse? It’s a symbol of outmoded privilege; a call to know your place and stop moaning.

    3. If I was searching for he name of a country with ‘ridiculous political extremes’, the USA is not the first that would spring to mind. Prince Charles seems to be very smitten with the monarchies of the Middle East, which is not a place I (being a woman) would like to live.

    4. I’m from Sweden myself (and also happen to have some political science in my academic portfolio) and the reason our political history is reasonably balanced, up until about 20 years ago when everything changed, has nothing to do with Sweden being a monarchy. Rather, the thing is that Sweden, since the 30s, more or less constantly was ruled by the same center-left party (the social democrats), with only a short interval of a center-right coalition government to unstable to make any real difference.

      There is also the “samförståndspolitiken”, a very Swedish parliamentary phenomenon where the ruling parties always tries to find a compromise with the rest of the parliament (this comes from the fact that Sweden, due to it’s non-two-party-system, usually have had minority governments which has had to play nice with everyone else to not lose support). This is like an informal checks-and-balances which has, since the early 90s, gone out of style. (As the social democrats are actually republican, this system is the primary reason we still do have a monarchy in Sweden.)

      Non-Swedish people, especially English-speaking people for some reason, still seem to think that Sweden is the same, slightly boring, social democratic, backwards and stable country that it was from the 30s up until the early 90s. Since then there has been more extreme shifts of policy, from a yes to the EU to a no to the EMU and a strong anti-EU movement.

      The famous Swedish social security system and welfare state is more or less demolished, a new report a few weeks back showed that Sweden, which has been number 1 or 2 among developed countries when it comes to social security for the second half of the 20th century, has fallen below the average. A far-right party (the Sweden democrats, comparable to the BNP) are now the third largest party (8,7 % this Monday), among moves from the (center-right) government very obviously playing out the “ethnically Swedish” underclasses and immigrants against each-other.

      So, no, Sweden is not a “reasonably balanced country” anymore, and when it was, it had nothing to do with being a monarchy. I don’t know about the other countries you mentioned but please remember, correlation does not imply causation.

      1. Joje,

        I am so glad you’ve put people’s ideas about Sweden right. It drives me mad when Radio 4 goes on about the Swedish society as if it was some kind of social 7th heaven. They also say this about Finland even though we’ve never had a monarch, and, like Sweden, Finland is showing a worrying trend towards the extreme right.

        So whether a country has a King or Queen doesn’t have much to do with social stability. In my view they’re a brilliant PR tool for all kinds of industries and should be kept at that level. Plus I love a good British pageant!

        Helena

      2. Thanks for this – I was in Sweden whan that process started -scapegoating/ blaming the immigrants as the recession arrived as the Gov. slashed into jobs and wages and services- causing a rise in racism and the nazi movement while the gov moved in to attack ordinary people. Just like GB in the 70’s – and now. The target groups were different -but the purpose was the same -divide& rule; scapegoat the weak for what
        the powerful are doing .

    5. What revenue would that be ? Oh yes all those people buying plane tickets as they might get a glimps of the Mag through a curtain at the palace !
      They are commiting treason yearly by attending Bilderburg meetings. Anyone who is above the law needs bringing down. To see criminals escape justice damages us as a Nation and makes us a laughing stock.
      Harry Hewitt dressed as Rambo to lure innocents to their deaths in Afganistan when he is having a day off the polo field boils my blood.
      Eliteism in a modern society is as unacceptable as racism

    6. Now you are being silly: It costs us millions funding them:France makes more from tourists visiting Royal relics,palaces etc since they cut their heads off -so if we want to increase revenue the economic argument seems starightforward- though i’d personally advocate putting them on an average wage/job on an average estate & leaving them to it plus the obvious alternative is to still have ‘a royal family’ but a different one each week so we can all- all families or those who define themselves as such – take a turn at being The R.F. – dress up silly, wave ,make platitudes for all occasions -for a fortnight . Sorted.

  6. Well said! I can just about understand why someone might believe in monarchy (even though I don’t agree with them). But I can’t understand why so many would spend hours in the rain to catch a glimpse of someone, however much they admire her, as if she was some sort of supernatural being. At the republican protest outside St Paul’s today, I was pushed and threatend with violence by royalists. When I said I respected their right to their opinions and asked them to respect mine, they responded with more threats of violence. As a result, we had the strange experience of being *protected* by the police.

    1. The best bit about the rain was she didn’t even set foot on the new £1,000,000 launch. So those who dragged their flag waving children from the far flung reaches of the Empire .did so to wave at an empty boat. Still gave the rowers something to laugh about.
      I surgest next time her Mag can’t be bothered we should employ Disney. They would at least have someone dressed up for the kids. Or they could do a Jubilee ride at Alton Towers.

  7. I’ll say the same 4 words I say to every republican: President Thatcher: President Blair.

    1. Well, that’s an interesting point you make Gary, but what has the Queen done about all of the nonsense ‘her’ government has been up to of late? Ever known her to not sign off any of the incredibly badly drafted laws that erode our rights, or step in to clip blatantly corrupt MPs like Hunt around the ear. No, because our figurehead is not what she seems!

      She’s not useless by any means – she serves incredibly well to make people go misty eyed and soft in the head when they are being shafted every which way politicians of every party, after all.

      1. exactly, if anything her existence is proved to be even more worthless when anyone brings up this defence of her position. Tories and Labour have sold out the glorious renditions of “Britannia rules the waves” by wiping out the naval stock, joining defensive forces with the most cowardice country in the world done nothing for its image either!
        A commonwealth engaged in hundreds of industries now reduced to a small island country with every type of industry dying on its knees, grasping toward other foreign dominance to build our ships and cars….aye well done queenie yer a shambles!

    2. Gary – would you vote for either of those? Do you think anyone else would? Of course, for your President Blair there is a King Charles which if anything is worse. Nothing to stop him standing for president mind.
      The experience in Ireland is that the last 3 presidents have been hugely respected individuals who have raised the profile of Ireland worldwide. All the queen does is ask other people if they have come far. Mary robinson has been a hugely influential force for good, both in office, and after leaving it. Can you say that of the queen?

    3. Surely the elected-monarch-replacement would have the same duties as the Queen today – smiling, shaking hands, opening parliament, naming boats and so forth. And so it would be a nice harmless position for Blair or Thatcher. Alternatively we could elect Elizabeth or Charles Windsor into the role, if either cares to stand. It *would* be a mistake to replace the monarch’s role with a role that has anything to do with running the country. We don’t have to copy France. We’d probably skip the executions too.

      Plus, we only elect them if we like them, and 5 years later, if we don’t like them, we can ditch them.

    4. That tired old cliche Mark. Simple difference is in the apparent dystopia you predict Margaret Thatcher wouldn’t be replaced by Mark Thatcher or Tony Blair replaced by Euan.

    5. If there was a vote held to elect a president, in which the Queen stood as a candidate, she’d surely win by a landslide. As a republican, I’d be very happy with that. Yes, Thatcher and Blair are unpopular: therefore they would find it hard to become democratically endorsed as president.

  8. If i’d managed to avoid work while getting benefits for 60 years I’d expect to celebrate too!

  9. The comparison with North Korea is gratuitous and dull. We all know that it’s a load of bollocks but it’s an excuse for a party, so let’s enjoy it and have a good time.

  10. 1) If Thatcher or Blair managed to get themselves elected President, tough, that’s democracy.
    2) Depending on how the President’s powers are defined, a President Thatcher would probably be unable to do anything like the harm Prime Minister Thatcher did. Most European republics have ceremonial, not executive, presidents.
    3) We’d have a way of getting rid of them if we didn’t like them.
    So give me President Thatcher or President Blair over any monarch.

  11. Liz was impotent to prevent Blair & Thatcher doing their worst so what is the point Gary?

  12. I’m no royalist, but she seems pretty popular, certainly much more than she was say ten years ago.

    So to say she keeps the job for no reason isn’t really true. If we wanted to get rid of her, we could.

    For me, I’m not sure….

  13. Mark and other republican contributors – How dare you criticise the Queen and the Royal Family when they have been given their right to reign over us by the Almighty.

  14. I have a sneaky suspicion the Queen lady didn’t want to be there either but couldn’t use the excuse of the sneaky bladder! Still she did look very excited when the wooden horse danced ontop of the Festival Hall. Maybe she thought some Greeks were going to jump out and end it all?

  15. Good work Mark. The whole weekend was repulsive.
    Why would we need a President? Why do we need a PM?

  16. I used the same argument when I caught my family planning a 40th birthday party for me a couple of years back. Why celebrate? I’ve managed to get to 40 years…..and?
    “but it’s 40, it’s special”
    How exactly?

  17. There doesnt have to bean alternative to Kings and Queens: just get rid of them and enjoy not being reigned on.

  18. Enjoyed reading the article. I would love to know how the Royal Family provides a net income to our country as quoted in the comments above. When properly analysed you might find that this is not the case at all. If it is something to do with tourism then consider how any people have come to this country to see the Queen? Oh and that thing about political systems, I don’t think the Queen has much to do with our system at all. Surely countries like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and many more should be added to the list of countries with “less” extreme political systems. After years of being a bit of a royalist I recently had my eureka moment. Reasons are explained here http://letterfromplanetzod.blogspot.co.uk/

  19. People crying in the streets as they declare their undying love for someone they’ve never met and who wouldn’t know them from Adam was possibly one of the most disturbing aspects. I have absolutely nothing against Royalists but there must be reason in all things. To see a grown man (with tattoos, I might add) blubbering: “Iss on’y right, innit? Gawd bless ‘er! After all she done for us… iss on’y right…..” makes me wonder if we’re all living on the same planet. Perhaps he lives in a parallel dimension in which Her Maj personally halted a tsunami in its tracks and saved Blackpool… I don’t know. But I am beginning to suspect that reality is relative.

    Thank God I’m surrounded by friends who seem to share the same reality as me in which the Queen has spent her entire life traveling to exotic locations to receive gifts from despotic dictators, wearing priceless jewellery and signing stuff… oh… and waving. Whenever she meets a member of the common people, she invariably asks: “and what do you do?” I long for the day when someone replies: “I’m a second-stage cantilevered widget grinder but, more to the point: what exactly do YOU do?”

  20. I’m not particularly a monarchist but I’m not a republican either. If we had the chance to change the system I wouldn’t vote for replacing what we have with a presidential system. We could scale it back a bit – so it’s more like the Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Belgian monarchies but I expect there’s a good reason why those generally admirable countries haven’t become republics. As Douglas Adams almost put it ‘the last people who should be put in positions of power are those who ask to be there’. Her Maj certainly didn’t ask to be Queen but imagine a President Thatcher or President Blair (not difficult, given that both of them behaved as if they were).

    So, I’m with the Aussies: when it came to the crunch I’d vote to stick with what we have, particularly if we could get someone else to pay the bills. (Germany, maybe? Obvious choice given the background of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the fact that the Germans actually have a functioning economy. )

    Also, I was in London on Sunday and – apart from abused unemployed people and the tens of thousands who couldn’t see a thing who grumbled a bit – the crowds were largely happy ordinary people having a nice day out in the rain.

    Do agree with you that John Sergeant is a prat, though.

  21. I totally missed this Jubilee thing, but I’m from Sweden and the news of our youngest princess being baptised have probably drowned out any royal news from the UK, even though the media here usually seem to be almost as in awe of the royal house of Windsor as the royal house of Bernadotte. Now, for the moment I’m obviously more amazed by how impressed some people apparently are by someone managing to be born to a life of luxury but I would probably be just as amazed by people being impressed by someone managing to stay alive 86 years (at least right now, with Swedish health care being demolished I might not be as amazed in ten or twenty years).

  22. @Joje Didn’t realise the Swedish health care system was being demolished as well. How are your government doing it? Ours is paying management consultancy McKinsey and others £millions to sell our National Health Service to private companies. McKinsey is also working for companies which are looking to take over health services and have current/former staff overseeing the ‘fairness’ of the whole process so I can’t imagine that anything could possibly go wrong. Sorry for going slightly off topic – I’ll start thinking about the Queen and happy crowds again to blot out the horror.

    1. Basically, the same thing is happening over here. Swedish health care is traditionally divided into primary and secondary care. Primary care is handled by small health care centers, special pre- and ante-natal clinics, homes for the elderly and such, while secondary care (for more serious afflictions) are handled by hospitals. I’ve gotten the impression that the NHS works in a similar way, although in a more centralised way than Swedish health care, which is decentralised among the “landsting” (regional or county governments).

      Large parts of the primary health care is right now being privatized. A system called “avknoppning” (apparently translated as spin-off), where the staff (in theory, usually it’s only the chief physicians) buy the health care unit for a very favorable price, has been going strong for a while but seems to be illegal now (hasn’t stopped it from continuing though). Of course these new owners promptly sell their unit to one of the large private health care providers (such as Carema, Attendo etc.) making insane profits.

      The quality of, especially the care for the elderly, has since seen a dramatic decrease as these units now must turn a profit to please the new owners. The term “diaper weighing” has become very common in Sweden and refers to the new practice at privatized homes for the elderly of weighing diapers to see if they’re “full enough to warrant a new one” or if they’re to be put back on.

      It should be mentioned that a lot of the aformentioned “avknoppning” deals have been done between personal friends, as the politicians seem to move in the same circles as the chief physicians. In some cases, local politicians have more or less sold health care units to themselves, as in they’re share holders (and in many cases, board members) of the companies which end up buying the units in the second, “unintentional”, stage of the “avknoppning”.

      However, only small parts of the secondary health care system has been privatized. This might be in part because many large hospitals are so-called university hospitals, where new doctors and nurses are trained, and all universities in Sweden are public. It might also in part be because of the very large resistance against private health care in Sweden.

      1. That’s for that Jojo. I assume you have a good idea of how the UK system works – primary healthcare is delivered by general practitioners, most of whom are salaried and paid by the NHS although practice principals and partners are self employed. Most hospitals here are still publicly owned, although the government has begun the process of selling them off. One of the worst aspects of the recent legislation here is that it opens up the possibility of charging patients which would completely undermine the ‘free at the point of delivery’ principle on which the NHS is based.

        Overall the reforms here are based on an ideological belief the private sector is good/public sector bad. As in Sweden, there’s huge potential for private sector companies to make vast profits by asset stripping, getting locked into contracts which can’t be broken and then demanding higher payments etc etc.

        It’s all the Queen’s fault…

  23. I’d suggest that it’s not that it’s hard to find republicans during the jubilee, it’s more that, like most athiests, we’re happy to just let the royalists/believers get on with it, we just choose not to join in because we feel it’s all a little bit silly and a waste of time and money.

    We’re not ‘into it’ like you lot, but we can see you’re having fun, and at least you’re not doing any damage, so why would we try to stop you? It’s only a weekend and then it’ll be back to normal.

    Was darkly funny to see the Daily Show on Piers Morgan’s CNN coverage, as the tragic plane crash happened, that they stopped for a moment, and went on to report on the avation disaster that was…. the flyover being cancelled because of the weather…but isn’t the Queen looking lovely, and she’s even able to wave on a BOAT!

    86 and waving, can you believe it. I sometime wonder if the times you see her looking miserable are her thinking ‘stop revering me, I’m just an old lady in a funny hat, really, oh god, don’t buy me a boat, I’m the bloody queen and even I can see the country can’t afford it, you idiots.’

    I bet she’d take a 90% pay cut and give up half her land if she could quit showing up to places to wave and have to repeatedly ask ‘oh and what do you do?’ ‘lovely’.

  24. Proud to be one of the majority! I think you seem to have missed the whole point. Thank your lucky stars we don’t live under a dictatorship and you are free to express your views, rather than be imprisoned for airing them.

    1. A monarchy *is* a dictatorship. Thank your lucky stars that our monarchy has been diluted to a ceremonial role.

      You understand the formal structure, right? God appoints the Queen, the Queen appoints a government. The Queen holds elections to guide her choice of government, but she only abides by the election because she deigns to. Everything that goes through parliament is just a suggestion to the Queen – a law is “passed” to the Queen for royal assent.

      The reason the monarch doesn’t tend to overrule election results or parliament is that they’ve seen in France and elsewhere what happens when the proles get properly cross. We don’t know, however, how actively Brenda instructs the PM of the day in their weekly audience.

  25. The existence of a monarchy helps maintain the belief system that those born in to wealth have an inalienable right to rule ( in parliament too ) and that they have a right to protect their wealth at the expense of others.
    Surely we have reached a time where we all believe in the good and best rising to the top in our society and that rather than protecting outdated structures we should have millions marching to further that end and not millions standing staring and cheering a lady who has only managed to steer a steady course through history essentially to protect her family, certainly not her nation.
    How good it would be to have a Nelson Mandela as our President. There are many good/great men and women about like him, but we have to be prepared to search for them not accept a cardboard cut out second best.

  26. Reminded me of the death of Kim Jong-Il.

    Loads of people fawning over an unelected leader who is completely and utterly out of touch with reality.

  27. Mark, bless you, I thought I was alone until I read your article. I too (like someone mentioned above) have felt like some sort of militant republican and have been accused of being ‘unBritish’ simply because I do not believe in unelected heads of state. I really live in a world and with people I really do not understand at all – and they do not understand me.

  28. Thing i found funniest of the entire weekend was that the BBC was lambasted for it’s “Mind Numbingly Tedious” coverage of the events.

    Frankly – if the coverage was mind numbingly tedious, it sounds pretty accurate to the “Amazing” sight of a lot of boats floating down the Thames over hours…..

  29. I love the knockers knocking the knockers. Each to their own but I do rather feel that the “Royalists” among us must justify a Monarchy by reminding us of our freedoms, including speech. Does a British Monarchy entitle us to freedoms? Really? Royalty is very much like religion to me . if you feel you need to believe in it to make your life better, more worthwhile go ahead. But don’t ask me to smoke the opium with you.

  30. She stood up the whole time she was floating on a boat down the Thames! Now that’s bravery for you! Apparently she’s stood up and what-not quite a lot these past 60 years. Terrific stuff. Good on you ma’am!

  31. Generally i think most of us are “in on the joke”..and the same ridiculous “cult of celebrity” operates around Presidents anyway…but of course the Stupid Royal Family idea puts the brakes on a true meritocracy..(i could elaborate here of course,because Presidents DO have at least the pretence of a political agenda ..and ironically, according to Joseph Stiglitz the USA is EVEN MORE divided and unequal than Europe in terms of wealth/class)
    Basically,we all know that the Queen is a “meeter and greeter” like the people giving out flyers as you go into a shopping Mall or Supermarket…and i suppose we can look forward to some expert meeting and greeting and waving, from Charles and Camilla then Wills and Kate in the middle distant future.
    The thing that pisses me off the most is the “we don’t want Charles” argument.
    They want the evil Charles, who got their beloved Diana killed to step down for her Son..fuck off! You’ve got a heriditary sytem to stick to or you’ve got nothing!
    The words of Jonny Rotten still ring true..i heard him say himself. “it’s not fuck the queen it’s God Save (God help) the Queen”..we are still in the same position as in ’77 “No future in England’s dreaming”

  32. Totally. Getting quite queen-oriented in Ireland too; even Sinn Fein didn’t object to her visit last year. Some of us (in Galway Alliance Against War) had a fake funeral – the coffin represented the death of Irish neutrality…but most people were delighted with the glitz… They don’t look below the sparkle.

    1. I’m wrong about that last one – the coffin (on that occasion) didnt represent the death of irish neutrality ; rather it represented those who died in the many wars of the British empire.

  33. Many of these are probably the same mad people who voted for New Labour in 1997. I remember it was illegal to disagree with that, at the time, too.

    1. They will probably vote for ‘previously owned’ or ‘Nearly new’ Labour next time. Sad to reflect.

      Phil – I could vote for Lionel, though my first choice would Burcie or Johanna Lumley (still pondering!)

Comments are closed.