On Why the Queen Does Not Own Anything! 

Infact the British ‘Absolute’ Monarchy was Abolished in 1649 – What We Need Now is to ‘Abolish’ the ‘Constitutional Monarchy!

When the axe fell upon the neck of Charles 1 on January 30th, 1949, (around 1400hrs) the absolute monarchy of England ended and power was formerly transferred to the conquering bourgeoisie – which, through Parliament had fought a number of wars in the 1640s against the Crown (and its supporting aristocracy) designed to take control of the means of production. King Charles I, of course, was tried by a jury of his peers in a justice system he and his royal ancestry established, maintained and inflicted on the people of Britain. Those misplaced individuals who supported the King then, and continue to support the parasitic monarchy today, whilst condemning the trial and execution of King Charles I, fully support the trial and punishment of everyone else (in the name of the King), and have nothing to say about the tens of thousands of ordinary people killed in the wars the King started, or of the atrocities carried-out by former Kings or Queens (Henry VIII, for example, had around 75,000 [unemployed] former serfs hanged along the roadsides of England as a warning to all those who could not find unemployment in the ‘new’ socio-economic system he established. This death toll maybe added to the tens of thousands dispossessed and killed during the dissolution of the monasteries and the expulsion of the hitherto powerful Catholic Church. And this is just one example of the mania and excess associated with the institution of an absolute monarchy. 

The BBC reported yesterday that the Queen receives a Sovereign Grant of around £85.9 million per year – paid for out of collective taxation (the BBC omitted that part). This is a ‘welfare’ hand-out with many parasitic royals being in receipt of such other dole payments as ‘Housing Benefit’ – which consist of huge amounts they never personally see but that are handled by the royal accountants (again, this bill is met by the British taxpayer). Whilst the Welfare State and the NHS have been systematically attacked, reduced, abolished and privatised since 1979, spending on the royal family has increased dramatically to finance their decadent lifestyles! Although the British police are refusing to ‘arrest’ and question Prince Adnrew before ‘charging’ him for the paedophilic crimes he has been widely reported of committing, (consisting of raping and sexually abusing underage girls around the world), the Queen, in her infinite wisdom, has decided that we as a nation – will collectively pay to ‘bribe’ (through taxation) the victims of Prince Andrew’s ‘alleged’ paedophilic crimes – so that each individual and family concerned, will ‘withdraw’ the allegations and stop any Court action from proceeding (which would otherwise result in his conviction and imprisonment). Of course, the British right-wing press – which always pursued the line that the royal family (ironically, just like the ‘Pope’) is ‘infallible’, see no reason to hold any of the individual members of the royal family to account for their criminal behaviour – alleged or otherwise. 

Following the Bourgeois Revolution in the UK (during which tens of thousands died or were wounded in the violence), it was important that all the reforms that favoured the peasantry (who constituted the bulk of the Parliamentary Armies) were withdrawn and the middle-class firmly cemented as the new masters of the English political system. Essentially a mass appeal for support from the numerically superior peasantry class was no longer required as the war had been won. Indeed, it was now important that the peasantry as a body be ‘disarmed’ and their political rights curtailed so as to prevent any independent ‘peasant uprising’ that would threaten to usurp the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production in a new Revolution! Part of that ‘curtailing’ involved the ‘Restoration’ of the Stewart bloodline and the ‘crowing’ of Charles II as King! The difference being that now this ‘new’ monarchy was subordinate to Parliament was effectively ‘employed’ by it to masquerade as a ‘Constitutional’ monarchy. This means that the ‘restored’ monarchy was not a ‘restoration’ at all, but rather a ‘re-invention’ designed to scare the peasantry into conforming to the new political order! The language used by the now dominant bourgeoise was deliberately deceptive and misleading, (being a type of ‘legal fiction’), designed to give the false impression that the King possessed the same ‘absolute’ power the Crown possessed before the death of Charles I. This charade was kept-up by bourgeois individuals voluntarily acting in the best interests of the royal family – a trend seen today in the British right-wing media and bourgeois establishment. In the 1660s and beyond, however, this right-wing aspect of the bourgeoisie hunted down the men who had bravely fought in the English Civil Wars and ‘murdered’ many of them (Cromwell’s dead body was disinterred and desecrated during this process) – accusing them of the fabricated crime of ‘Regicide’ (a term amply used in the anti-intellectual ‘Wikipedia’). This playing with words and murderous activities has all been part of the smoke and mirrors employed by the right-wing of the bourgeoisie to discredit and disenfranchise the left-wing of the bourgeoisie which had effectively took-on and defeated the corrupt King – Charles I – in the name of the people! The right-wing of the bourgeoisie, of course, could not care less about ‘the people’ and only pursue a path pertaining to their own well-being. 

The Queen (and royal family) today remain ‘employees’ of Parliament and the British State. Although this is their ‘position’ within British society – they do not ‘work’ in the conventional sense – and instead receive huge Welfare pay-outs to fund their lavished and privileged lifestyles (all paid-for through collective taxation). Whereas the Queen receives around £2 million per week to live on, the average British ‘subject’ receives around £45 per week – the latter payment of which quite often has to be used to support a family during times of unemployment. Whereas ordinary ‘poor’ British citizens are arrested, interrogated, tried and imprisoned for claiming amounts as little as £10 more than they were entitled to, (usually for many and varied mitigating circumstances), the British royal family sees their corruption and embezzlement of public money as a demonstration of their ‘superior’ social standing, despite the fact the royal family does not and ‘cannot’ own any property in its own right. This is a prime example of how the Bourgeois State uses language in a deceptive manner. In reality, ALL the royal palaces are owned by Parliament (that is, the ‘British Nation’ or the ‘People’ as ‘taxpayers) and are ‘rented’ to the royal family to live in should they so choose. This ‘rent’ is often paid through clandestine and ridiculously large Housing Benefit pay-outs! The royal family cannot ‘own’ any personal property as it would indicate that they still possess ‘absolute’ power – when they certainly do not.  

The royal palaces are owned by Parliament but are made ‘available’ to the royal family – all paid for by the British taxpayer. The ‘Sovereign Grant’ and the ‘Housing Benefit’ are all paid for out of the public purse – as is the cost of maintaining and staffing the royal palaces. Places like Hampton Court – which the royal family no longer uses – belongs to each and every one that comprises the ‘People’ in the UK, but the government has ‘sold’ its everyday and upkeep management (but not its ‘ownership’) to a private firm which then ‘charges’ members of the public an access fee to look around the building and grounds they already ‘own’. Therefore, the general public pay for the royal family’s existence – whilst having to ‘pay again’ for the privilege of accessing and looking around buildings already owned by the ‘Nation’! The very concept of the royal family is parasitic and out of date. Although entities such as the Police and the Military pledge an oath to the Queen – each institution is in fact ‘legally’ bound to be loyal first and foremost to the Bourgeois State and the elected Parliament that administers that State! Whilst the British right-wing begrudges the British working-class possessing a Welfare State and NHS that itself-finances through collective taxation – it is perfectly willing to usurp the tax revenue collected from the working-class to finance the parasitic lifestyles of the royal family which quite often involves immoral or illegal activity for which no members of the royal family are punished in any way! What modern people must remember in the UK is that the contemporary royal family works for us – and we do not, as a nation – work for it! Furthermore, the Queen possesses NO political power and we are NOT subject to her Majesty’s whims, beck or call! The contemporary royal family is an anachronism that should be abolished with all the royal palaces turned into schools, hospitals, museums and freely accessible public spaces.  

2 comments

  1. One of the greatest strengths of predatory capitalism is that its ideologues have managed to convince the masses that the ‘personal’ is not ‘political’ – and that capitalism is ‘somewhere out there’ but never ‘here’. This suggests that the ‘private’ exists in an immune ‘bubble’ when infact it is an exact reflection of what is happening in the world. The sustaining vehicle of capitalism is hyper-individuality – which is unnatural even from a scientific and evolutionary perspective. It is, in effect, an evolutionary dead-end which involves one group of human-beings living off the labour of another group of human-beings – as if the species is self-consuming! Most fit into this structure whilst remaining unaware of its existence. The ‘inverted’ mind-set defines not only religious thinking – but all bourgeois thinking. Correcting this inverted mind-set would mark the end of bourgeois dominance as thoughts in the head would no longer be mistaken as real objects existing in the concrete world! Economics and rights proceed from the mind-set that conceives them as necessary and relevant. The system we have demands a certain justifying mind-set – and the justifying mind-set legitimises a certain socio-economic system or manifestation.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Adrian,

    Would you agree, or not, that the central problem is political power? Or do you see things at root only in economic terms? (I appreciate the question may seem ‘simple’. Marx, Adam Smith and all the great thinkers, were in the political economy tradition of thought, but the dichotomy of thinking I refer to here is axiological).

    I understand the point that if you allow disparities of economic power (employment, contractual asymmetries, renting and property relations, wealth accumulation) then this results in inequality, but others would say this inequality is not in itself sinister provided substantial ‘freedom of contract’ is maintained. They go on that such inequality is anyway inevitable and this is what brings them to a radical diagnosis. The real problem, they say, is the state, not capitalism. It is the state that is the root of the problems brought about by inequality and other social evils and ills. Remove the state, and inequality would remain, but its adverse manifestations would dissipate or disappear.

    These people are often stuck in a paradox because they can never quite resolve the problem of how this freedom of contract, and other essential economic liberties, will be maintained without a state. Surely liberties in the sense of exercisable rights can only exist if enforced, and this requires a political state? The paradox is resolved by the liberal in either private legal associations (effectively a ‘judicial contract state’) or some brand of minarchism, or both. (I could also go into the naivety of believing in economic liberties in this sense, but won’t as we’ll be here all week).

    While this type of libertarianism can be naive, I think there is a certain logic in fundamental liberal ideas about the state. The reason the monarchy and its royals have the privileges you mention is not because of the monarchy or the bourgeoisie or the underlying social system, but because they are part of the state and enjoy certain moral privileges and immunities thereby.

    Of course, I also accept there is a profound naivety in liberalism and its understanding of power. Power is a very complex idea. A father and mother have social, economic and ‘political’ power over their young children. There is nothing strange, odd or sinister in this. The parents are, in a sense, the ‘state’ in that situation. They are responsible for feeding, roofing and clothing their children. You can – and I would – extrapolate from this and argue that ‘human nature’ (that all-purpose fall back explanation!) lends itself to a hierarchy of some sort. Even in a pure Marxist/socialist system with democratic mechanisms for resource control, you would have a de facto hierarchy based on varied human capabilities. Surely this is inescapable?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s