The Jubilee is a Celebration of 70 Years of Elizabeth Windsor Living At Our Expense

 The Monarchy is the String that Ties the Robber’s Bundle – We Have to Make Sure That There is No Charles III

Platinum Jubilee - The Great British distraction

I imagine that like me you are sick to the backteeth of the servile, sycophantic, fawning tone of BBC broadcasters and news readers as they compete with each other to find the most obsequious and servile adjectives to describe a seriously dysfunctional family.

Their purpose being to convince us that the idea of a hereditary head of state is somehow compatible with democracy. Even the bourgeois kind. One wonders whether there are any other professions - teaching, mathematics, history, which use the hereditary principle as well?  Perhaps they operate it at the BBC too, which might account for quite a lot!

For the past 2 weeks, whether we like or not, we have been bombarded with messages about how grateful we should be that Elizabeth Windsor has agreed to live a life of unparalleled luxury at our expense, aided by a subsidies of over £100m annually.

Even the right-wing Tax Payer’s Alliance isn’t happy with the amount of money spent on the Royal Family.  They wrote:

However, there are also clauses in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 which are completely unfair on British taxpayers.

The Act includes a provision that prevents a fall in the value of the Sovereign Grant. It was put into force this year when the Crown Estate portfolio fell by more than £500 million in value, after land and property investments went sour during the pandemic. Instead of taking it on the chin like every other business owner who has seen their assets hit due to covid-19, the taxpayer has bailed the royals out – ensuring that the Sovereign Grant will not fall in value for the next financial year....

The bailout by HM Treasury means that money that would have been spent on public services has now been diverted to the royals. This is expected to give the monarch a grant of £86.3 million for the year 2020-2021. Despite the Act guaranteeing the royals will never make a loss, the Sovereign Grant has ballooned in size, giving them year on year increases for the past decade above levels of inflation. In 2016-17 the grant was worth £42.8 million, which steeply jumped to £76.1 million in 2017-18 and continued to rise handsomely until this year. The royal family have a rising income under this system...

Today’s royals have hardly been as thrifty, showing little regard for value for money. The Sovereign Grant financial report uncovered that Prince Andrew squandered £16k on a private jet travelling to Londonderry from Belfast in his capacity as Patron of the Open Championship at Royal Portrush Golf Club in July. As eighth in line to the throne, ‘Air Miles Andy’ could have set an example by going on an affordable airline instead of a private jet. 

Forbes magazine estimated the Queen's net worth at around £325 million) in 2011, while an analysis by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index put it at about £275 million) in 2015. In 2012 the Sunday Times estimated the Queen's wealth as being £310 million and that year the Queen received a Guinness World Record as Wealthiest Queen. The Sunday Times Rich List 2015 estimated her wealth at £340 million. She was number one on the list when it began in 1989, with a reported wealth of £5.2 billion, which included state assets that were not hers personally, (approximately £13.2 billion in today's value). (Wikipedia)

The Queen hobnobbing with the Bahrain King whose Security Forces Tortured Doctors and Nurses who Tended the Wounded who had been Fired on by the King's

If this was any other family they would have child psychologists and social workers crawling all over them, to say nothing of the long arm of the law.

It is common knowledge that Andrew Windsor raped and molested girls half his age and more who were being trafficked by a convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his madam Ghislaine Maxwell. After all no one gives more than £10m to someone they’ve never met, as happened with Virginia Giuffre.

After all Andrew had a cast iron alibi since at the time he was supposed to be with Virginia. He was entertaining his daughters at a pizza parlour as well as suffering from an inability to sweat!

Percy Shelley - radical poet

The Real Purpose of the Monarchy was Spelt Out Over 200 Years by the radical poet, Percy Shelley when he wrote that the Monarchy was the ‘string that ties the robbers’ bundle.’

The Monarchy above all have a political function, not in a party political sense but as the symbol of an ugly, undemocratic British state in which a tiny handful of people own the vast majority of wealth whilst millions of people are living in or near the poverty line.

Three in a marriage was a crowd!

The top 1% in society own 25% of total wealth and despite exhortations for us to be ‘patriotic’ they have no hesitation in stashing it in offshore islands beyond the reach of the tax authorities.

It is no accident that the Conservative Party, which is dedicated to a programme of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich, is the most overtly pro-Monarchist party. Boris Johnson is happy to take £20 per week from universal credit claimants whilst at the same time he is falling over himself to spend £250 million on a new Royal Yacht.

Those who demonise ‘benefit scroungers’ are more than happy to hand over hundreds of millions of pounds to an already vastly rich family.

As Seamus Milne wrote the purpose of the Monarchy, above all, is a political one. In times of constitutional crisis they have potentially enormous power because the organs of the state, the army and police owe their duty to them not the people.

This is called the Royal Prerogative and it was demonstrated when Johnson prorogued i.e. cancelled the ability of parliament to sit. The Queen was happy to go along with Boris but the Supreme Court decided otherwise.

Sir John Kerr - author of an Australian coup d'etat

In 1975 this was demonstrated when the Labour Prime Minister of Australia was removed by the Queen’s representative, Governor-General Sir John Kerr. As John Pilger has shown, this was done in co-ordination with MI6 and the CIA. The CIA were apoplectic that an American base in Pine Springs might be closed down. Australia has historically been the US’s closest ally in the Pacific, as we can see today with the Aukus Pact aimed at China.

Overthrow of Gough Whitlam

The BBC claimed that the Queen didn’t know of Gough Whitlam’s removal. She didn’t have to know.  She appointed the Governor-General who used the reserve powers of the crown to overthrow an elected government. What the Crown did in Australia they can do here.

When people drool over and fantasise about the Royals and what they get up to, with the encouragement of the tabloids, they are being shown the ‘human’ side of an ugly family and an undemocratic institution.

It's not just Andrew who has a fascination for paedophiles - Charles befriended Peter Ball, Bishop of Lewes, who was later gaoled for offences against children - offering him a house on his estate

The Monarchy is not about the tantrums of Price Harry or the peccadilloes of Andrew or the tree hugging of Charles.  Nor is it about how Princess Diana was treated 20 years ago when she and Charles separated.

It is about the British state being represented in human form as a family that British people can identify with, for good or bad. The Royal Family stand above all for the idea that however rich or poor you are you can identify with them as a symbol of national unity.

But Britain today is not what it was 70 years ago. More than one in four (27%) British people now support abolishing the monarchy. As Republic note, support for retaining the monarchy stands at just 60%, well below the 70-75% previously reported.

A YouGov poll carried out for anti-monarchy group Republic found that 41% of 18-24 year olds want the monarchy abolished whilst only 31% want to keep them. Across all age ranges that figure stands at 27%.

Ben Wallace & the Slaughter of Black Bears

Labour voters are evenly split, with 44% wanting to keep the monarchy compared with 43% favouring abolition. Graham Smith of Republic was quoted as saying that:

"When looked at alongside other polls in recent years, it appears support for the monarchy is on a slow puncture."

"Just ten years ago monarchists were consistently boasting that three quarters of the population supported the royals, now support stands at just 60%."

Of course a republic in itself is no panacea.  The United States and France are hardly more democratic or egalitarian than Britain despite being republics. A democratic state also has to be a socialist state where wealth and wealth production is in the hands of the people and where the economic levers of power are not in the hands of a tiny minority. But there is no doubt that the removal of this rich, privileged and selfish family will be a step in the right direction.

Nor is there any need for an elected head of state, a kind of elected dictator. The problem we have is an unaccountable Prime Minister and Parliament as Boris Johnson is demonstrating with a raft of Bills to increase Police powers and clamp down on demonstrations and trade unions’ right to strike.

Andrew Windsor – The Real Question is Why he hasn’t Been Questioned by the Met – has Rape been Decriminalised?

The time has come for this dysfunctional family to be retired and Britain to become a Democratic Republic

It beggars belief that Andrew Windsor is innocent of the allegations made against him by Virginia Giuffre. Allegations which he strenuously denied in his disastrous interview with Emily Maitlis in November 2019. A child could work out that you don’t pay £10m+ to someone you don’t know.

Rape is having sex without consent.  A 17 year old girl who is being trafficked, i.e. not free to go, is not in a position to give meaningful consent. The question is why the Metropolitan Police haven’t interviewed her. It appears that the Met has a policy for the rich and powerful and another for us.

As I wrote at the time, the interview with Emily Maitlis was in the traditions of the BBC’s sycophantic coverage of all things Royal. It was a soft softball interview. Yet despite the reluctance of Maitlis to pursue obvious lines of inquiry, such as why he had spent 4 days with Jeffrey Epstein at his New York mansion and what he had done during that time, or why he didn’t avail himself of the hospitality of the British Embassy, it was a car crash interview.

The only mitigating factor for Andrew Windsor is that he must be incredibly stupid, even by Royal standards. How could he have ever thought that this interview would clear him? His own press spokesman resigned at the time after his advice had been disregarded. And yet the Queen, who had the power to prohibit the interview, did nothing. Clearly stupidity is a Windsor characteristic. Too much inbreeding!

Windsor’s explanations, his inability to sweat or the outing to the Woking Pizza Express, were widely derided at the time. Clearly his decision to settle, despite his bravado that he was looking forward to giving evidence, reflected the fact that these were brazen and pathetic lies. His assertion that he had benefited from being associated with Epstein caused widespread revulsion but we should bear in mind that standards in the Royal Family are not those of most people nor was it the only time that the Windsors have supported Establishment paedophiles.

Charles Windsor consistently supported Peter Ball, the ex-bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting two young men. Ball, was sentenced to 32 months in October 2015 for charges relating to 18 teenagers and young men between the 1970s and 1990s. He admitted one count of misconduct in public office and two counts of indecent assault relating to two young men.

The first police investigation into Ball, who died in June, was launched in 1992.  Despite there being an abundance of evidence to bring the case to trial, it was decided that Ball would get a "police caution" for gross indecency instead. The report found that one of the detectives working on the case was worried about the case going to trial due to Ball's mental state and the "devastating effect" it could have on the Church of England.

There was also an understanding that Ball would resign from his post, which he did. But just four months later, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, wrote to Ball about planning his "cautious return to ministry." Less than two years later, he was back to work with "no restrictions" — and was even allowed to be around children and young people unsupervised.

In June 2017 George Carey resigned from his last formal role in the church after Dame Moira Gibb's independent investigation found he covered up, by failing to pass to police, six out of seven serious sex abuse allegations relating to 17- to 25-year-olds against Bishop Peter Ball. In 2019 the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [ICSA] confirmed Carey had discredited credible allegations of child sex abuse within the Church and failing to accompany disciplinary action with adding to the church's own safeguarding watchlist.

IICSA said Carey showed compassion to Peter Ball that was not extended to his victims, and displayed overt support for Ball’s innocence despite having no justification. The church’s response was marked by secrecy, prevarication and avoidance of reporting crimes.

The report spoke of “The damaging consequence of this overriding allegiance to one’s own ‘tribe’ was that child protection was compromised” in the Diocese of Chichester. Perpetrators, about whom there were allegations or even convictions, were provided with unrestricted access to children and young people.

Apologies given by Justin Welby, the present archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior church figures over the C of E’s failures were “unconvincing”. Alexis Jay, the inquiry’s chair, said:

‘For years, the diocese of Chichester failed victims of child sexual abuse by prioritising its own reputation above their welfare. Not only were disclosures of abuse handled inadequately by the church, its response was marked by secrecy and a disregard for the seriousness of the abuse allegations.’

Carey told the inquiry that he was “under great pressure” from Ball’s supporters. William Chapman, representing survivors, told the inquiry: “The story of Peter Ball is the story of the establishment at work in modern times.” Ball had been able to call upon the

George Carey - a nasty racist, Zionist and homophobe 

‘willing assistance of members of the establishment. It included the heir to the throne, the archbishop and a senior member of the judiciary, to name only the most prominent.’

Neil Todd, who made the first complaint against Ball to the police in 1992, killed himself in 2012 after several previous attempts.

A separate independent review of the Ball case, commissioned by the C of E and published last year, found evidence of collusion and a cover-up at the highest levels over a 20-year period. Peter Hancock, the bishop of Bath and Wells said:

‘The report states that the CoE should have been a place which protected all children and supported victims and survivors and the inquiry’s summary recognises that it failed to do this.... the church at all levels should learn lessons from the issues raised in this report.’

In order to demonstrate how much it had learnt its lessons in February 2018 Carey was granted permission to officiate by Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, allowing him to preach and preside at churches. This was revoked on 17 June 2020 as the church found Carey could have done more to pass to police allegations of historic beatings at schools and evangelical children's camps, by John Smyth. Permission was restored to Carey seven months later. 

As a result of publicity a second police investigation was launched in 2012, which resulted in Ball pleading guilty three years later to misconduct in public office and indecent assault and abusing a total of 18 teens and young men over a period of 15 years. He was released from prison in February 2017, after serving half of his 32-month sentence.

The scandal involving Charles Windsor arose as a result of his relationship with Ball between the first police investigation and Ball being reinstated in the church.

Windsor was among the many influential people in the UK that Ball formed friendships with, including Margaret Thatcher, senior judges, and headmasters at private schools, according to The Guardian.

He also is said to have often preached at Sandringham, one of the royal family's private estates.

In August 1994, Charles Windsor sent his private secretary to Lambeth Palace to inquire about Ball's status to the Archbishop's top aide. When he learned that Ball had still not been cleared to return to ministry in February 1995, he wrote to Ball saying "I wish I could do more."

"I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated. It's appalling that the archbishop has gone back on what he told me, before Xmas, that he was hoping to restore you to some kind of ministry in the church. I suspect you are absolutely right — it is due to fear of the media,"

Charles wrote, in one of the many letters exchanged during their two-decade correspondence.

He even bought Ball a house to live in, using the Duchy of Cornwall (our money!) to purchase the property and then renting it out to Ball and his twin brother from 1995 to 2011.

An independent inquiry criticizes the Prince of Wales

After Ball's conviction, an independent inquiry into child abuse was launched into how the case was handled.

When the panel published their report they said "the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided". In other words a slap on the wrist.

His actions, and those of his staff, could have been interpreted as expressions of support for Peter Ball and, given the Prince of Wales' future role within the Church of England, had the potential to influence the actions of the Church,

while Windsor said he

took no position on Peter Ball's return to ministry, he and his private secretary enquired about Peter Ball within Lambeth Palace. He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,"

But this should not be any surprise. The Queen herself has maintained close relations with the most abominable of her relations abroad such as King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain. As the Guardian reported in May 2019

The king regularly attends the prestigious five-day Royal Windsor horse show, which is a highlight in the Queen’s year. Pictures on Friday showed him meeting the British monarch and Prince Andrew, with the two heads of state laughing together as they watched the event.

Such is the closeness of the two monarchs that they have gifted each other horses from their respective stables; the king providing two to the Queen in 2013. The British monarch responded in 2017, giving him a horse in return.

The King maintains a veritable dictatorship in Bahrain which Britain has supplied with over £100 million of arms since 2011. Bahrain is a Sunni dictatorship ruling over a majority Shia population. The Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 were met with murderous repression including Saudi Arabia despatching troops to put it down.

Doctors and nurse tending the wounded were themselves tortured. A report here gives further details on the unsavoury relations of the Queen

Elizabeth Windsor and the Sultan of Brunei

In May 2012 the Queen hosted a gathering of her unsavoury relations such as the Sultan of Brunei who introduced a law that included stoning to death for gays and those who commit adultery. It was only under heavy pressure that he was forced not to implement them (though one can never be sure).

So Andrew is not the Black Sheep of his family. Far from it. He is just the most stupid and brazen of the Windsors, a dysfunctional and parasitic family.

It is not however a question of the personal inadequacies of this inbred family. It is a question of democracy. No one would ever suggest that we should appoint hereditary mathematicians or poets. Why then do we still have hereditary heads of state?

The slavish loyalty of the BBC and unprincipled politicians like Starmer and Johnson to the monarchy has nothing to do with the ‘good’ job that Elizabeth Windsor performs. It has everything to do with the important political role that the monarchy plays in legitimising the British state. They are the symbol of the British state and the armed forces swear their allegiance, not to the people of Britain but the Queen in state.

As such the monarchy is a perpetual threat to democracy. If Corbyn had become Prime Minister, despite the hostility of the British Establishment and the threats of unnamed Generals, then it is quite feasible that a coup would have been launched, as it has in other countries, in the name of the Monarch.

The political function of the Royals is to serve as the icing on a poisonous cake. They represent the heart of an undemocratic state, with its unelected Lords. They are the face of privilege and perform the role of binding together the nation in obeisance to a myth. However rich or poor you are you can always identify with the ‘Royals’. The slavish and gushing coverage in the tabloid press aims at making them appear ‘human’ and one of us.

I prefer the advice of the revolutionary poet Percy Shelley who wrote in his Philosophical View of Reform (1820) that ‘Monarchy is only the string which ties the robber’s bundle.’  It is as true now as it was 200 years ago.

Tony Greenstein