By Admin Comment Closed

The Royal Highway Men

Ep 139

 

Setting the Framework of This Week’s Podcast

  • Introduction: We will begin with the recent revelations from Channel 4 Dispatches about hidden royal finances and alleged exploitation of vulnerable individuals. Emphasize that this is not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern kept quiet for decades by the UK establishment.
  • Historical Context: I will briefly refer back to the French monarchy’s fall, highlighting the secrecy, entitlement, and sense of invincibility that fueled its end. This helps frame the UK monarchy’s behavior within a historical context of decline and disconnect from public sentiment.
  • Objective of this topic: This podcast will explore the risks of allowing such power without transparency, as well as the potential implications for the UK’s political and social fabric.

The Structural Risks of Monarchy Secrecy 

  • Undisclosed Wealth and Power: We will explain how the monarchy’s wealth remains largely unexamined due to its protected status, which gives the institution unchecked financial and political power. Mention the monarchy’s close, confidential meetings with the UK prime minister, which remain shielded from public scrutiny.
  • The Role of the Establishment: Dive into the layers of protection from the establishment—media, government, and legal entities—which maintain the monarchy’s secrecy and enable its wealth accumulation. This arrangement leaves the monarchy unaccountable, allowing it to engage in actions that would otherwise face public outcry if more transparent.
  • Narrative Element: Pose rhetorical questions, such as “What happens when a figurehead of unity amasses unmonitored wealth at the expense of its subjects? How does it continue to claim neutrality while benefiting from opaque relationships with those in power?”

Echoes of the French Monarchy’s Decline

  • Comparisons to the French Monarchy: Describe the historical factors that led to the fall of the French monarchy, such as financial excesses, failure to adapt to societal changes, and ultimately, public resentment.
  • Drawing Parallels: Point out the parallels in modern UK: the vast wealth and privilege of the monarchy amid public financial struggles, the growing gap between those in power and the common citizen, and an increasingly disillusioned population.
  • Public Discontent Today: Highlight recent surveys showing that support for the monarchy is dwindling, especially among younger generations. Emphasize how generational differences might play a role in shifting public opinion and the monarchy’s future in the UK.

 

Introduction

 Our podcast this weeks relates to the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary, on the findings of less than positive money grabbing by the King and the next in line of the UK Monarchy family. Taking from the vulnerable and lining their pockets with the millions of £s per year. Money that they have never declared and is only being made public now following a 5 month investigation by The Times, and an earlier foray by The Guardian. I have no doubt in my mind that all this was known to UK media for decades, but for whatever reason, The Times has decided to bite the bullet and publish its findings. The Monarchy legal firm blocked the documentary from airing twice in the last week, and things have been removed. What is left is bad enough, but comes as no surprise to non Royalists. I refuse to write about the Royal Family whenever possible, but I refer to their behaviour from time to time, without mentioning their names. I refuse to be their PR. The family are pleased to have their name in media outlets as much as possible, even when the content is not necessarily favourable. They rely on deference by the population, but that is not helping them as there are less than a third who are Royalists in the UK now. The majority of the under 25s do not support or understand the need for a Monarchy. Support/interest from that age group is in single figures. Most of the people who support and claim to want a Royal family (as it gives stability to the country in their minds) are in the same age group as the senior Royals. ie Most are 65 and above. The population in the middle are either not interested, or undecided, and generally more concerned about getting through another week without going hungry or cold. Most find the idea of being a subject to a Monarch as strange and outdated. First of all, do you know the report I am referring to? Do you know the outline of the documentary which aired two days ago? It is the Establishment which keeps the Monarchy going, because all those within it, eg government, aristocracy, legal, police, media – printed and televised and those who own them – all benefit by having a Monarchy in place, which officially is not political, but yet meets/communicates with the PM every week but nothing they discuss is ever revealed to the public, and other important individuals. Deals are made, but none of it is documented. This practice of the Monarch and Heir money grabbing from the vulnerable and the organisations who look after the vulnerable, is one that has been in place for centuries.  The fact that each successive UK Monarch has had no issue with continuing this archaic practice, is bad enough, to know in this century, how any member of the BRF can sleep at night, while gorging on the funds that they do not need, and have no issue with the people who have to go without even more of their falling standard of living, in order to ensure that the billionaire UK Royal Family can continue to reap funds from this unnecessary hike on their living and health standards.  Rates of pay for staff working for the Firm, is the equivalent of buttons, and the only staff who don’t mind are those who a

re extremely wealthy anyway, and who on paper work for the Firm and are present in the offices for a few minutes a day, but officially are referred to as working more hours than actual fact.  Anyone who is used to actually working a full day, would not and does not fit in with anyone who sets foot in those hallowed corridors on the pretext that they are working.

Overview of the Documentary and Findings

The Channel 4 Dispatches documentary aired findings from a five-month investigation by The Times, with previous groundwork by The Guardian, that exposed undisclosed wealth amassed by senior Royals—particularly the King and his heir. The investigation found that millions of pounds are taken annually, purportedly from funds that were meant for vulnerable individuals, and redirected to the Royal Family’s private interests. This was previously suppressed, as the Royal Family’s legal representatives attempted to prevent the broadcast twice last week, though portions were still aired.

 Supporting Evidence

It’s clear that a web of institutional secrecy and historical privilege shields the monarchy’s finances. As I have noted previously, the monarchy’s financial dealings and relationships within the UK establishment (government, media, and aristocracy) allow for these wealth accumulations to remain under the radar. Weekly undisclosed meetings between the monarch and the prime minister could further indicate a level of coordination that isn’t in the public interest.

 

Key Talking Points of the Podcast

  1. Historical Silence by UK Media:
    • Explore why the UK media has largely withheld this information. Even though the monarchy’s finances are a matter of public concern, the press is often deferential due to legal pressure or media ownership interests. The Times’ decision to publish the findings might indicate a shift in public and media tolerance.
  2. Public Disillusionment and Demographics:
    • The declining support for the monarchy, especially among younger demographics. According to recent surveys, support among under-25s is in single figures, suggesting a generational shift in values. For many, monarchy is outdated, with concerns over transparency and relevance in the modern world.
  3. The Establishment’s Role in Upholding Monarchy:
    • The monarchy’s survival depends on backing from powerful institutions within the UK establishment. These include government and legal bodies, which protect the monarchy’s financial and political dealings from scrutiny. Address the implications of an apolitical institution involved in confidential governmental conversations, without accountability.
  4. Socioeconomic Implications:
    • Worth commenting on the contrast between the monarchy’s wealth and the economic struggles faced by many UK citizens. With more citizens prioritizing basic needs over monarchy support, there’s a widening gap between royal wealth accumulation and public well-being.
  5. Growing Calls for Transparency:
    • What might lead to greater transparency or change? With public sentiment shifting, and with each new investigation, support for a modern, more open form of governance could grow.

I would like us to consider and subsequently outline the danger and risks of such an arrangement, and now that this documentary has been published, and there is more to come apparently, I would like to point out the implications of and for the Monarchy. I did a podcast recently about how France handled their last monarchy and why and how it happened. The UK is already following the pattern, even if they and the Royals Family are in denial.

 

Exploring the dangers and risks of the monarchy’s financial arrangements and the broader implications of its existence in a modern society:

Podcast Outline: “The Hidden Costs of Monarchy: Risks, Realities, and Reflections on History”

Introduction

  • Opening Context: Briefly summarize the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary findings on financial misconduct, focusing on the monarchy’s accumulation of wealth from questionable sources and the establishment’s role in keeping this quiet.
  • Connection to Recent Podcast: Recall your earlier discussion on France’s handling of its monarchy’s decline and the pattern it followed. Note the eerie parallels with the current situation in the UK, despite the monarchy’s apparent denial of any risk to its status.
    • A brief Summary of the Podcast “Let Them Eat Cake” and how the last Monarchy family reign was brought to an avoidable end, and the avoidable reasons why.
  • Unrest on UK streets and vandalism and destruction of property and assets, owned or rented by businesses or private individuals is not and will never be described as “protests” that is the top tier societal group description used in all forms of media, but those of us who live in the real world, describe it as “rioting” in the streets. As the podcast progresses, you will begin to see the similarities between France and the UK.  Not in everything, but most definitely in terms of the mindset of the two Royal Families and the disconnect with the people of their nation.  When the priority of the King or Queen is the survival of the Monarchy, before being concerned in any way of the plight of its people, and the slow realisation of the people that is in fact the case, change begins to take place.  I will just summarise most of those stages, but all the links to detail on those and many other areas of interest are included in the Reference Sources in the article.
  • There are behavioural traits that occurred in the French Royal family, which by the end of this podcast, I hope you begin to pick up and identify with many members of the UK Royal Family and also many of those I mentioned earlier who are from the top societal group.

 

Segment 1: The Financial Risks and Legal Loopholes

  • Unaccounted Wealth and Vulnerable Sources: Expand on the documentary’s revelations about funds meant for vulnerable people being redirected to the monarchy.
  • Legal and Institutional Complicity: Discuss the legal barriers that prevent full transparency and accountability for the monarchy’s finances.
    • Implication: When unchecked wealth accumulation goes unquestioned, it undermines the values of democracy and equality, creating a dangerous precedent.
  • The route map is already written but not everyone has taken the time to read it in detail, but all will come to know it very well indeed. Every Royal Family which no longer exists, in any part of the world,  ceased existence either by Elections taking place and being voted out, or via Revolution, where some left their country to find refuge in other nations elsewhere, or some stepped down and stepped back from public life.  Others were executed.  Never forget the UK Royal Family forced members of their own family living in another country to stay in their homeland and who eventually were assassinated.  Never forget what I said earlier, the priority of the UK Royal Family is for the Monarchy to survive, and includes even if relatives of theirs had to/have to die elsewhere. UK Royals are of German heritage, and they changed their names to Mountbatten-Windsor to reduce the chances of them experiencing the same fate as their relatives.  Never forget where the priorities lie.
  • France’s financial problems were the result of a combination of factors: several expensive wars; a large royal family whose expenditures were paid for by the state; and an unwillingness on the part of most members of the privileged classes, aristocracy, and clergy, to help defray the costs of the government out of their own pockets by relinquishing some of their financial privileges. As a result of the public perception that she had single-handedly ruined the national finances, Marie Antoinette was given the nickname of “Madame Déficit” in the summer of 1787.[124]While the sole fault for the financial crisis did not lie with her, Marie Antoinette was the biggest obstacle to any major reform effort. She had played a decisive role in the disgrace of the reformer ministers of finance, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (in 1776), and Jacques Necker (first dismissal in 1781). If the secret expenses of the Queen were taken into account, court expenses were much higher than the official estimate of 7% of the state budget.[125]
  • Louis XVI’s trial and execution
  • Main article: Execution of Louis XVI
  • Charged with treason against the French Republic, Louis XVI was separated from his family and triedin December. He was found guilty by the Convention, led by the Jacobins who rejected the idea of keeping him as a hostage. On 15 January 1793, by a majority of six votes, he was condemned to death by guillotine and executed on 21 January 1793.[188]

 Preparing for her execution, Marie Antoinette had to change clothes in front of her guards. She wanted to wear a black dress but was forced to wear a plain white dress, white being the colour worn by widowed queens of France. Her hair was shorn, her hands bound painfully behind her back and she was put on a rope leash. Unlike her husband, who had been taken to his execution in a carriage (carrosse), she had to sit in an open cart (charrette) for the hour it took to convey her from the Conciergerie via the rue Saint-Honoréthoroughfare to reach the guillotine erected in the Place de la Révolution, the present-day Place de la Concorde.[208] She maintained her composure, despite the insults of the jeering crowd. A constitutional priest was assigned to hear her final confession. He sat by her in the cart, but she ignored him all the way to the scaffold as he had pledged his allegiance to the republic.[209]

  • Marie Antoinette was executed by beheading by guillotine at 12:15p.m. on 16 October 1793.[210][211]Her last words are recorded as, “Pardonnez-moi, monsieur. Je ne l’ai pas fait exprès” or “Pardon me, sir, I did not do it on purpose”, after accidentally stepping on her executioner’s shoe.[212] Marie Tussaud was employed to make a death mask of her head.[213] Her body was thrown into an unmarked grave in the Madeleine cemetery, located close by in rue d’Anjou. Because its capacity was exhausted the cemetery was closed the following year, on 25 March 1794.[214]
  • France’s financial problems were the result of a combination of factors: several expensive wars; a large royal family whose expenditures were paid for by the state; and an unwillingness on the part of most members of the privileged classes, aristocracy, and clergy, to help defray the costs of the government out of their own pockets by relinquishing some of their financial privileges. As a result of the public perception that she had single-handedly ruined the national finances, Marie Antoinette was given the nickname of “Madame Déficit” in the summer of 1787.[124]While the sole fault for the financial crisis did not lie with her, Marie Antoinette was the biggest obstacle to any major reform effort

Segment 2: The UK Establishment’s Role in Protecting the Monarchy

  • Institutions with a Stake: Government, aristocracy, media, and legal bodies all benefit from maintaining the monarchy’s stability.
  • Weekly Prime Ministerial Meetings: Emphasize the secrecy surrounding these meetings and their potential for unchecked influence.
    • Historical Context: Mention how other European monarchies, like France’s, were supported by powerful institutions—until public sentiment turned irreversibly against them.

Segment 3: Public Sentiment and Generational Shifts

  • Youth and Public Disinterest: Address how young people in the UK overwhelmingly view the monarchy as irrelevant, with support in single figures among under-25s.
    • Socioeconomic Divide: Highlight the disparity between the monarchy’s wealth and the financial hardship faced by average citizens, especially in today’s economic climate.
    • Growing Call for Change: More of the UK public, facing daily struggles, see the monarchy as an outdated institution, one that no longer provides stability or relevance.

Segment 4: Lessons from History – France’s Monarchy and the Path to Revolution

  • French Monarchy’s Denial: Draw parallels between the French monarchy’s dismissal of public discontent and the current UK monarchy’s reliance on institutional backing despite waning public interest.
  • Factors That Led to the French Revolution: Illustrate how secrecy, financial excess, and disregard for public welfare stoked resentment, culminating in dramatic societal change.
    • The UK Today: Suggest that while the UK might not be on the brink of revolution, there are growing pressures and risks to consider. A monarchy that ignores public opinion and clings to institutional protection may be planting the seeds for its own decline.

Segment 5: Potential Implications and the Path Forward

  • Erosion of Public Trust: Reflect on the broader consequences of the monarchy’s secrecy and the establishment’s role in supporting it.
    • Is This Sustainable?: Ask whether such an arrangement can continue in a society where values are shifting toward transparency, accountability, and social equality.
    • Implications of Further Revelations: With more revelations on the horizon, explore how additional information might fuel discontent and potentially lead to calls for reform or even abolition.

Conclusion

  • Summarize the Risk Factors: Recap the key points about the monarchy’s reliance on institutional secrecy, growing public disinterest, and the historical lessons that show the danger of ignoring these warning signs.
  • Final Reflection: Pose a question to listeners: Is the UK monarchy on a similar trajectory to that of the French monarchy? And if so, how long before change becomes inevitable?

Dangers of Ignoring Change: Discuss how denying the public’s growing skepticism could lead the monarchy toward irrelevance or, in extreme cases, abolition. Point out that as the monarchy resists transparency, it risks alienating citizens who feel unrepresented and resent the entitlement.

  • Implications for the UK Establishment: Without the monarchy as a central figure, the establishment’s current structure could face upheaval. Consider what might happen if political, legal, and media bodies no longer have the monarchy to align around.
  • Narrative Element: Paint a scenario of potential consequences—perhaps hinting at other countries that have evolved without monarchies—and invite listeners to consider if the UK would benefit from a similar transformation.

Segment 5: Closing Thoughts and Call to Action 

  • Summary of Key Points: Recap the financial revelations, historical lessons from France, and the current societal risks of an outdated, protected monarchy.
  • Future Implications: A final thought on the monarchy’s ability (or lack thereof) to adapt. Suggest that without reform and transparency, it might face a crisis of legitimacy that could drive lasting change in the UK.
  • Encourage Listener Reflection: Question the role of monarchy in their society and to consider how the UK might evolve without it. Suggest looking at history as a guide for what might come next.
  • Use Analogies: Compare the monarchy to a corporation that hides its wealth from shareholders (in this case, the public).
  • Pose Questions: Periodically ask questions like, “What does it mean to be a subject in a modern democracy?” or “Is tradition worth preserving if it comes at a cost to transparency?”
  • Invoke Visuals: Consider the opulent lifestyle of the monarchy against the reality of struggling citizens, to create a stark contrast.
  • Buil : The information in this documentary is only the beginning, with more revelations likely to follow. This anticipates growing public discontent and curiosity.

I hope you can see the framework of this SGUK style podcast allows us to weave historical insights, critical analysis, and speculation on the monarchy’s future into a cohesive narrative that questions the institution’s role in modern Britain.

 

That is the end of this week’s podcast topic.  Hopefully given you all some food for thought.

Ivy Barrow

10/11/24