The Slow Decline of Royal Families
SGUK Episode: 124
Introduction
The tradition of a royal person ruling a society can be traced at least as far back as the earliest state formations in the Middle East. During the 4th millennium BCE, the rulers of the Mesopotamian civilization of Sumer declared themselves kings and arranged for their sons to inherit their positions. Throughout the millennia that followed, monarchies reigned supreme as the preferred system of government, the Greek city states (except for Sparta), the Roman Republic, and the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell being a few notable exceptions to confirm the rule.
Monarchies as a system of government began to fall out of favor in Europe during the 18th century when the movement known as the Enlightenment put the age-old connection between religion, politics, and social hierarchies under scrutiny. Out of these debates grew the oldest and still-existing political ideology of liberalism.
Because at the back of the mind of each king and queen, regardless of their powers being constitutional or absolute, lies the knowledge that in a world that is becoming increasingly democratic, there is always the option of a republic.
How have European monarchies survived the test of time?
Direct extracts from the article. Links below:
The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy: European Monarchies Compared includes contributions from 20 academic experts from Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK, providing the first comparative study of modern monarchies in Western Europe.
Professor Robert Hazell (UCL Constitution Unit) said: “The monarchy is dismissed by many on the Left as a feudal relic, but there is no doubt of its success. Some of the most advanced democracies in the world are also monarchies. Opinion polls in these countries regularly show that between 60 and 80% of people wish to retain the monarchy – these are popularity ratings which politicians would die for.”
Dr Bob Morris (UCL Constitution Unit) added: “The secret of their success has been allowing their political power to shrink virtually to zero. As their political power has shrunk, new justifications have emerged: that the monarchy is a neutral protector and guardian of democracy; a symbol of continuity and stability; and supporter of civil society through the encouragement and attention of royal visits and patronage.”
The key lessons of modern monarchy which emerge from the book are as follows:
1: Remain scrupulously neutral.
Monarchs who are too interventionist will encounter resistance. This is what happened in the Easter crisis in Denmark in 1920, when King Christian X was forced to back down. A more recent example was the refusal by Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg in 2008 to sign a euthanasia bill into law: the consequence was that he was stripped of his legislative role. Constitutional monarchs must accept that they have no discretion when it comes to matters of state; they have little choice but to approve every action of the government in the hundreds of documents they are required to sign every week.
2: Keep the team small.
The greater the size of the royal family, the greater the risk that one of its members may get into trouble, with criticism about excessive cost, and too many hangers-on. In Norway the royal family consists of just four people: the King and Queen, Crown Prince and Princess.
But the size of the royal family will vary depending on the size of the country concerned. The UK, with a population more than ten times that of Norway, needs a larger royal family to fulfil all the demands for royal patronage and visits. Prince Charles has been reported as wishing to slim down the royal family, but too small a team could reduce the monarchy’s reach and public profile.
In Spain, one reason for the monarchy’s low popularity is its limited visibility: the royal family consists just of the King and Queen – a royal family smaller than that in Norway is serving a population ten times the size.
3: Try to avoid scandals.
The most serious have been in Spain, where in 2011 King Juan Carlos helped the Spanish government to win a 7 billion euro high-speed rail contract in Saudi Arabia. Prosecutors in Switzerland and Spain are now investigating the accusation that he received $100m from the Saudis. Governments like to involve royals in trade deals, but it can cause difficulties, from Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (the Lockheed scandal), to Prince Andrew’s role as UK trade envoy.
4: Be accountable
Monarchs who step out of line risk losing their thrones. Grand Duchess Marie–Adélaïde of Luxembourg and King Leopold III of Belgium had to abdicate because of their conduct during the First and Second World Wars. The British King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate when he insisted on marrying a woman who had been twice divorced.
The monarchy may seem the very antithesis of a democratic or accountable institution, but ultimately continuation of the monarchy depends on the continuing support of the people.
- Maintain public support
The most formal way of testing popular support is to hold a referendum. Nine European countries have held referendums on the monarchy since 1900, with a grand total of 18 referendums. Referendums in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Spain all endorsed the future of the monarchy.
- Whole-hearted commitment
Monarchy requires big sacrifices of the royal family: they lead privileged lives, but within a gilded cage. Their freedom of speech is restricted, they are not free to marry whom they want, they lack freedom of religion (in Scandinavia and the UK), free choice of career, and the right to privacy and family life which ordinary citizens take for granted.
It was these restrictions which led Harry and Meghan to opt out of the royal family and their public duties in January. But it is not easy to ‘leave’ the family one is born into. Time alone will tell whether Harry succeeds in opting out of his royal status and gaining more of a private life.
“The public look to the monarchy to represent continuity and tradition, but also want it to be modern, and reflect modern values,” Professor Hazell concluded.
“The whole institution is shot through with contradictions, myths and misunderstandings. We hope that our book leads to a more realistic debate about our expectations of the monarchy, its role and its future.”
The European Countries that have Abolished Their Monarchies
France – 1789
One of the most famous monarchy abolitions was, of course, the French Revolution which took place in 1789.
Due to strikingly similar issues still pervading society today, French citizens successfully removed the upper class and created a new political landscape.
The watershed moment saw the violent disillusionment of King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette. Both were executed as part of the French plan to dismantle the existing regime.
One of the biggest reasons for the revolution was the French population’s frustration with the King and his apathy towards the country’s poor living conditions.
The peasant class was living in squalor, famine was abundant due to food shortages and citizens grew resentful of the King and Queen’s lavish lifestyle.
Louis XVI’s palatial creature comforts came to a crashing end as mobs of revolutionists stormed the Palace of Versailles, where the royal family once lived.
The revolution marked the end of monarchy and feudalism in France and wrenched back power from the royals, beginning a new political landscape which began with the rise of military leader Napoleon Bonaparte.
The French revolution in the 1700s saw the downfall of the country’s monarchy.
Italy – 1946
Italians voted to abolish the monarchy after World War II in 1946.
At the time, Italy’s royal family was widely reviled for collaborating with dictator Benito Mussolini and fleeing Rome when the Germans invaded.
The Italian royal family was helmed by Umberto II, the last King of Italy. He reigned for only 34 days before the referendum passed and the country was declared a republic.
It would likely be a terrifying thought for the new King, who may be pondering the bloodied pages of European history
Umberto and his family were exiled to Cascais, a town in Portugal, before his death in 1983.
Only in 2002, 56 years after the Italian royal family was literally run out of the country, were the disgraced royals allowed to return to their homeland? The heirs to the abolished Italian throne were allowed to re-enter the country and live as ordinary citizens.
Greece – 1973
The Greek royal family, a branch of the House of Glucksberg, reigned from 1863 until 1924, then again from 1935 until its demise in 1974.
Konstantinos Karamanlis, a conservative politician, held a referendum in 1974, where Greek voters confirmed the abolition of the monarchy. A staggering 69 per cent of voting citizens voted in favour of it being eliminated.
Then King Constantine II and his wife Anne Marie were declared ‘personae non gratae‘ in the 1980s and had their passports annulled, causing them to flee to the UK.
Constantine is a close friend of his second cousin, King Charles III of Britain, and is even godfather to Prince William. Update: King Constantine recently passed. Prince William was due to read the Eulogy at a memorial service for his godfather recently, but had to cancel with less than an hour to spare due to “personal reasons”. The service was held at Windsor Chapel.
He and Anne-Marie eventually moved back to Greece in 2013.
Queen Elizabeth II speaks with the former King Constantine of Greece in 2011. (Getty)
Germany – 1918
After Germany’s defeat in World War I, great civil unrest across the country resulted in the abdication of the last German King, Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Later in 1918, a parliamentary democracy was established and the Prussian monarchy was abolished.
Once Germany was converted into a democratic state known as the Weimar Republic, Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands, where he remained until a year before his death in 1941.
King George V rides with Kaiser Wilhelm II in the grounds of the Potsdam Palace. (Getty)
Portugal – 1910
The 1910 revolution saw the overthrow of the centuries-old Portuguese monarchy and the creation of the new Portuguese Republic.
It all began in 1908 when King Carlos of Portugal and his family were attacked by gunmen.
King Carlos 1 of Portugal 1889 – 1908
Luís Filipe, Prince Royal of Portugal, Duke of Braganza,; 21 March 1887 – 1 February 1908 w (eldest son and heir-apparent of King Carlos I)
Carlos I was killed and his eldest son, Louis Philip, was also fatally wounded. His son Manuel II ascended the throne, but the Portuguese crown would never quite recover.
Strikes, protests and media criticism of the monarchy – alongside growing Republican support – put the wheels in motion for a revolution.
A military coup and rebellion drove Manuel out of his residence and he and Amelia IV were exiled to the UK in 1910, making way for the Portuguese First Republic.
If a Monarchy (Who Receives Public Funding) Needs a Media to Make it Look Favourable – The Country is in Economic Decline
If a nation’s Monarchy is unable to garner interest and support from the majority of the public (its citizens) alarm bells should be ringing. The UK Royal Family has a number of Communication Team staff, that work with all the senior Royals. If a Monarchy which has a history of 1000+ years, is struggling to retain popularity, it is clear that there is a serious problem brewing. Over the last 3 decades or so, a group of journalists who each work for one of the national papers (mainly tabloids and the once respected newspapers have a fine line between them and the style of the tabloids) spend each day writing articles and meeting with their respective principals in the Royal Family, to agree priority news items.
The Royal Rota as this group is called, was set up to have an organised and structured approach to meeting with and agreeing on news dissemination going forward for an agreed period. The official reason was to ensure that the process was safe and to ensure that that there was an control over who could attend for briefings and for Royal engagements etc. The reality is that approximately 10 or so reporters have regular access. The same reporters get the high profile interactions. One person is appointed as the Manager of the Rota, and that person also has their named member of the Royal Family who they liaise with most of the time. The reality of this group and its activities is that it is the propaganda team for the Royal Family and their role is to ensure that the BRF receive favourable press. With that in mind, articles are written in clear styles where someone is in favour, and the opposite when someone is not in favour. Decided by the Royal Family.
I will repeat the heading of this section because I firmly believe that any Monarchy who cannot generate the climate for its nation to support it, with their own Communication team in place, then it does not say much for the UK or its figurehead family if they have to rely on a Royal Rota to ensure that a certain type of profile is presented every day of the Royal family. There are regimes in the world who do this as well, and may take things further than the UK, but the fact remains, the UK has its own propaganda team, like those regimes, and the members of the public in the UK have never had the chance to vote for whether or not they wish to retain a Monarchy. 46% of the UK do not want a Monarchy, and most of those are below the age of 30. The majority of the people who regard themselves as Monarchists are aged 65 and over – pretty much mirroring the age group of 5 out of the 7 senior working Royals. Most of the people in the age group of the Prince and Princess of Wales do not support having a Monarchy, and those who are aged 25 and below, support for a Monarchy is a single figure. Not even the Royal Rota are going to be able to turn that around. Natural processes will eventually lead to an increase in those who wish to have a Republic. Recent antics dressed up as something else in the media, is just taking the UK nearer to the drain that it currently circles each day. It may take a few decades, but I feel confident that the Uk will become a Republic one day. The very fact that a large number of people are employed to prop up the Royal Family and to write glowing things about certain people, and the opposite for those who show independent thought on Royal matters is proof that they are aware that the only way for the Monarchy to survive is to continue to use propaganda methods to keep enough people on the side of Royalty. Never forget all those who are employed in media communications would not be employed in these roles if there was no Monarchy to look after. There is a huge industry that has grown over the last few decades purely to support an hereditary Monarchy. People born into the role, with no questions asked about knowledge or competence. The King is not currently in good health, and the next in Line of Succession, has age on his side but no completed project of any type and questionable competence on any task. The Royal Rota and the Royal Communication Team will ensure that every official publication and all printed media published in the UK will give the impression that all is well
.
In recent weeks there have been a series of photos and videos produced depicting various members of the Prince and Princess of Wales family, all of which have been officially pulled from circulation due to alteration of the contents, and global news agencies such as Getty images and Reuters, have declared that the Uk is currently no longer a trusted source, and is now regarded the same as publications coming out of North Korea, to name but one nation. I suspect that the Royal Rota and the Communication Team staff in the palaces need to cut out the game playing in recent months, and to sit down and put together a credible framework of operation. As the title of this section indicates “any nation that relies on propaganda to ensure that the country is seen and regarded in a favourable light, indicates that the country is in economic decline in reality”. I still agree with that statement.
Disputes between brothers has centuries of history
There’s also a long history of such feuds. As Larman puts it, “Think of James II, who began as Duke of York and then made a spectacular mess of being king [in the 1680s] after [his brother] Charles II died. Or Richard III, who, if Shakespeare is to be believed, brought about the deaths of both his brothers Edward IV and the Duke of Clarence to ascend the throne [in the 1480s], only to be forced off it by Henry VII. Nobody’s thinking that Harry has had anything quite so dramatic in mind… yet, anyway.”
In a new 60 Minutes interview airing in full on Jan. 8, Harry claims that one of the reasons he’s going public about the drama is because the royal family’s relationship to the British press has made it impossible for him to have the private conversations necessary to mend his relationship with his father and his brother.
“Every single time I’ve tried to do it privately, there have been briefings and leakings and planting of stories against me and my wife,” Harry tells Anderson Cooper.
In the 60 Minutes interview Sunday night, Harry said he and his brother William have basically been living separate lives since their mother died in a 1997 car crash. In high school, William told his younger brother to stay away from him. But Harry suggests that dating Markle, which started in 2016, strained his relationship with his brother even more. In early 2019, on the grounds of Harry’s cottage at Kensington Palace, the brothers got into a shouting match over what he says were inaccurate stories in the tabloid press about Markle. Harry says William pushed him so he landed on a dog bowl. In September 2022, when Queen Elizabeth II’s health took a turn for the worse at Balmoral Castle in Scotland, Harry says he wasn’t invited on the family plane up there, and by the time he arrived, she had died.
In a separate interview on U.K. broadcaster iTV, which airs a few hours before 60 Minutes, Harry argues that his father and his brother do not want to make amends. “I would like to get my father back, I would like to have my brother back,” he says. “They’ve shown absolutely no willingness to reconcile.”
In a six-part Netflix docu-series Harry & Meghan that debuted in December, Harry revealed that William screamed at him during a family meeting with his father and his grandmother, the late Queen Elizabeth II, shortly after Harry announced his desire to give up royal duties. Harry also claimed that he didn’t consent to a joint statement that the royal family put out in the brothers’ name to debunk rumors that William was bullying Harry. He claimed that the royal family’s staffers were willing to “lie to protect my brother” and his alleged misdeeds, but “for three years they were never willing to tell the truth to protect us,” meaning Meghan and himself.
The feud between the brothers is also about more than just their relationship with one another.
“The traditional ascription to the ill-will between William and Harry is that neither of their wives like one another and that has driven a wedge between them, coupled with a sense on William’s part that his younger brother has behaved irresponsibly and selfishly in abandoning any sense of duty by staging his quasi-abdication,” says Larman.
Harry has not been totally cut off from his father and brother. Shortly after Oprah Winfrey interviewed Harry and Meghan in March 2021, journalist Gayle King—a friend of Winfrey and Markle—told People that Harry talked to his father and brother after the interview, but that the conversation was “not productive.” Harry had told Oprah that his father stopped taking his calls at one point.
It remains to be seen whether the family will come together in a public show of unity before King Charles III’s coronation ceremony on May 6. Larman notes that Harry has chosen to air his family’s dirty laundry, arguing, “Today, we might not see royal brothers meeting on the field of battle, winner taking all, but instead we find them conducting their warfare via that rather more insidious weapon—the media—and hoping that the court of public opinion will favor one side over the other in a hopefully definitive way.”
Extract from The Conversation publication. Full article included in the reference sources below
Underlying some of this reporting has been implicit and unpleasant racism that refers coyly to Meghan’s “exotic DNA” or labels her as “straight outta Compton”, carrying the unambiguous message that she is “not one of us”. In her Oprah Winfrey interview, Meghan all but confirms that the racism she experienced extended into the royal family itself.
The reasons behind the media’s malice
There are at least three reasons to explain this apparently visceral hostility to the Sussexes.
First, there are the legal cases which both royals have brought against the press and comprehensively won. Last month, Harry won an apology and “substantial damages” from the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online for publishing false allegations that he had turned his back on the Royal Marines.
Ten days later, Meghan won her privacy case against the same publisher in a summary judgement in which the judge called publication of her father’s letter “manifestly excessive and hence unlawful”. The British press does not like being bested in court, and the Mail in particular will be looking to exact revenge.
The Daily Mail’s front page on January 11 2020 suggested that the public was furious over Prince Harry and Meghan’s decision to step back from the royal family.
Second, there is the commercial imperative: sales and clickbait. The royal family sells newspapers and attracts online readers. In the pre-electronic era, every publisher knew that a front page picture of Princess Diana would be guaranteed to shift copies from newsagents, street sellers and garage forecourts. Today, casual readers are drawn to headlines on social and online media, which are fed by a worldwide fascination with the Royal soap opera.
Every soap opera needs its heroes and antagonists. Britain’s tabloid press has demonstrated over the years how adept it is at creating fairy tale princesses and pantomime villains, regardless of the impact on the individuals themselves. Stories are embellished, distorted or simply manufactured to generate more clickbait and thus more revenue.
Third, there is a longstanding culture in British print journalism that, as far as celebrities are concerned, their business is our business. At one level, this is an entirely appropriate journalistic imperative to hold power to account (think, for example, of the Prince Andrew interview on the BBC’s Newsnight).
Too often, however, the norm of journalistic scrutiny is exploited as a fig-leaf to justify monumental invasions of privacy and downright lies that cannot be justified by any arguments around accountability. A healthy journalistic culture knows the difference between exposing incompetence, corruption or dishonesty in high places and the vindictive hounding of individuals designed simply to maximise corporate profit.
It is just possible that the press in this case has overreached itself. Its vilification campaign is transparent and is being called out on social media in the UK and US. As legacy newspaper circulations continue to fall, such grievance-driven journalism looks increasingly like an ageing relic from a bygone age. Even before the current pre-Oprah drama, Guardian columnist Marina Hyde wrote that “Much UK media reaction to Meghan and Harry reeks of this gathering powerlessness.”
No doubt more vicious headlines will greet the Sussexes after Sunday’s interview. But we may just be witnessing the decline of a toxic tabloid culture that treats individuals – ordinary people as well as celebrities – as sensationalist copy fodder. If so, it will be good news for British journalism.
The Disdain for the British Public is Clear
- Target Practice
It has become more and more evident that over the last 30 years or so, the games played by the partnerships between various groups of the Establishment, which include The Royal Family and Government, along with the owners of a variety of UK media organisations, including newspapers, dehumanize members of the public to the degree that they employ tactics that will give high percentage of success in its implementation and the ensuing results achieved. The targets of the media cabal, range from celebrities to the ordinary person in the street, and when it suits, it applies to members of the Royal Family too. When targeting the ordinary person in the street or a well known celebrity, there is no sleep lost over the state of mind or body of people that they pursue to be able to write articles for weeks which bring in much needed income, and another box can be ticked as being a good result. If those targets are left with lifelong mental health issues, or worse, their heart stops beating, no signs of remorse ever appear, and the business practice continues. For the last 30 years, the practices have continued, and no one in the media industry has a problem with that approach. Zero concern for the families impacted by the treatment, or the grief that many experience after been tackled by UK tabloid media life forms. If they are going to dehumanize their prey, then it should work both ways. It is amazing how things become a little uncomfortable when the rabbit holds the gun though doesn’t it?
When the prey join forces and try to explore ways of fighting back. The UK media industry, despite losing money on their publications for years now, are subsidised/bankrolled by their newspaper owners. For them it is about winning this war that they created, and ensuring that their form of news rhetoric is displayed no matter what, not least for the ripple effect with ‘partners’ in other parts of the establishment and government. All of those entities still make money regardless, and the ones who will suffer ultimately will be media cockroaches and rats at the bottom of the media food chain. The Hate for Hire Business Model has served those at the bottom of the food chain for a few years now, but that is about to change, and one by one, the income is reducing dramatically for increasing numbers, particularly those who like to think of themselves as friends of the UK Royal Family. Downsizing of homes, not being able to live the life that they have been living from the proceeds of destroying a number of people on their target list. Some are licking the boots of those who are borderline to financial ruin, in the hope that they both sides will come into wealth and all will be swimming in the gravy train again. At least one is prepared to sell their soul for free gifts of dog treats and advertising the merchandise. There is no bar that is too low for these bottom of the run media folk will not sink below, no level of increasing the risk of mental health issues of their prey, and if a suicidal ideation transforms into a heart ceasing to beat, not a second of sleep is lost.
With morals like that, all of them involved in this hunter and prey game for income, deserve to pay the price for the destruction that they preside over. Any of them who think that the Newspaper Barons or the Royal Family will save them, will find out the hard way.
- The Quid Pro Quo Arrangement with British Royal Family
Media and Royal Family need each other. The unwritten contract requires both sides to benefit. If it does not produce benefits at the same time, at a particular stage of the Plan, it is required to even out in due course – sooner rather than later. If either side does not play their part, tensions occur. The existence of a Monarchy keeps a number of people in paid work, and since Harry and Meghan have escaped from the toxic environment in the UK and are building safety boundaries in their new life in the USA, the media chew toys have cut off the life supply to the money tree, and now some of those individuals are either unemployed, hoping to earn enough from tv experiences spouting venomous versions of their tales, or some are beginning to really struggle now. The clear hatred and disdain for their 8 year campaign of hate and abuse against this couple, has tarnished the UK Monarchy around the globe. Not least because much of this activity was sanctioned by the UK Royal Family by its silence when the abuse and breaches in Human Rights legislation were occurring frequently.
There is an arrogance that appears to believe that power is all that is needed, and if one has power, one can do anything. It does not require intelligence, or knowledge of what society is finding acceptable nowadays compared to a previous decade.
In case of any doubt, this catalogue of errors which include false imagery passed off as original, or the spun out tale of a missing Princess, which over time is more like the children’s quiz Where’s Wally, rather than an actual plan of activity formed by a supposed professional Communications Team, working for the nations Royal Family. Questionable photos and questionable videos with lookalikes who I am sure do not work for free, paid for no doubt with UK taxpayer funds.
- Copy and Paste
Time spent creating videos and photos these last few weeks that purport to be one thing, when the reality is very different is a stain on UK Monarchy and the UK Media industry. There have been a number of questionable photos produced over the years, but because concerns came from a small group of people at the time, the truth never gained traction. There is also the matter that several people now have the skills to do a range of things in terms of publications, and most are highly skilled in the techniques used and way ahead of the lower skilled people thinking that they can fool all of the people all of the time, with their elementary school level of activity. Arrogance wins over common sense and reality.
The latest tomfoolery coming from one of those partners in the Hate for Hire arrangement is to play Copy and Paste via a well resourced Bot network posting the same post content multiple times, targeting the same person – in all its forms – with the naïve belief that the public wont recognise the game being played. The Copy and Paste element follows on from the bot activity on a wide variety of social media platforms. The Copy and Paste refers to the use of identical relic and worn out trickery scenarios from a thousand year old Playbook and expect to achieve effective outcomes in 2024. Messing around with photographic images from multiple sources and then putting them together to appear as one image, is the latest way to put a jigsaw together apparently. Jigsaw pieces from a many sources, but somehow with the belief that a few blurred edges is all that is required, and the public that the UK Royal Family appear to look down on and who they hold very little regard to their intelligence, the aim is if it all goes really well, the same public will feel sorry for them, and see them as the victim not the abuser.
By that I mean, the volume of conspiracy theories that began to take hold on social media platforms, if nothing else kept certain Royal Family members in the news headlines, way more than they have been used to for quite some time. The level of interest in any type of conspiracy theory is slowing down now, as expected because those individuals have nothing else of interest, at least nothing that is going to generate newspaper publications to make it worth their while to play this game. The number of people who actually care where the missing person is located is reducing by the minute. The same reaction will be evident for any further lookalike dug out of their cave for a few coppers and a minute of two of fame.
The key figures in all of this, is once again filling up their time with pantomime scenarios which without doubt give more weight to the vote for a Republic situation. Why should the UK taxpayers fund these 2nd rate panto productions in nonsensical locations and poor standard grainy footage?
The result is such that the UK is now compared to certain regimes that UK is used to believing that the UK was a higher quality brand in terms of Monarchy.
Bad actors are trying too hard to convince the public to care, and now that the interest in this low/high budget circus that has been paraded around centre of London, it seems the next thing to try and grab attention, is to create a victim that needs public sympathy. An English Rose who the Royalists usually will walk on hot coals to defend. Whatever the intention, the distraction methodology is a worn out tool which has outplayed itself now. It seems that there is a belief that the country needs a figurehead family with issues that are newsworthy. A family that the Royal Rota can spin articles that sound like fan fiction or families that consist of multi wives all living in mutual understanding. My personal belief is that if people are interested in watching that type of soap opera play out every day via their rv screens, they can easily subscribe to the relevant tv network and get their fill of the latest story. The cost of a subscription to a network, is a lot less than what the Uk currently pays out to keep a Monarchy going, who for the last 8 years have done less and less in terms of charities and increased time on vanity projects in order to be seen to be outscoring the ones who left to become self funding, and not be dependant on the Uk taxpayer to fund their interests. The Royal Family are not the Brady Bunch, or the Partridge Family, and the lack of meaningful public service outcomes weakens its existence daily. It fuels the Hate for Hire model of activity in the UK media to write articles encouraging/inciting targeted hatred against two individuals, one in particular. Behaving this way towards citizens and residents of another country, is not doing anything to build international relations between countries and adds weight to reducing the stature of the UK which in turn will impact on the economy.
If constitutional experts took the time to research Monarchies who are no longer in existence, the common theme was the lack of ‘reading a room’ and recognising the changes in temperature of the mood of the population. UK Monarchy believes that a 1000+ history ensures that they will last for many centuries yet. It is folly to believe that. Trying to come out the other side of this Copy and Paste mentality and try to be portrayed as the victims in the charade, with the help of the partners in media ie the Propaganda Team otherwise known as Royal Rota, the game will not end the way either party thinks it will end. The comparison with a certain regime is so apt right now, it is an interesting part of Monarchy history. Self inflicted too, which makes it even more embarrassing. The structures and the type of activity in both regimes is similar in too many cases. Hiding ones hands behind ones backs, does not absolve any member of any of the UK factions that have taken this country down this road for well over a decade, of innocence. You are all to blame for where the country is at the moment, and its standing on a number of Key Performance Indicators used for measurement.
The fact that the Monarchy and its partners have spent so much time and resources on anything but national priorities is yet another blot on the landscape of the UK. Travelling to countries on vanity projects with no measurable outcome – good or bad, all to win a competition that only Monarchy family members are interested in winning.
Watching this all play out this last 14 years, and more so in the last 7-8 years, the decline in a once great nation is well and truly underway now. With that in mind, I would just like to repeat 2 quotes I referred to earlier on in this podcast and to end the podcast with a quote from James Baldwin, which is very apt with regards to the topic of this podcast and the links between the top tier of the societal structure and the rest of the UK population.
The first quote is from one of the reference sources. The quotes are all linked in the article to the relevant reference source listed.
“we may just be witnessing the decline of a toxic tabloid culture that treats individuals – ordinary people as well as celebrities – as sensationalist copy fodder.”
To use another quote that I have used in recent weeks, and another quote I used last year, I will end this podcast quoting two people who know how propaganda works, and how a nation’s economy is deeply affected by the behavior of a minority of the population who operate in the top societal structure, and who have devastating impact on those in the other tiers of society.
“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X
“People who treat other people as less than human must not be surprised when the bread they have cast on the waters comes floating back to them, poisoned” James Baldwin
Ivy Barrow
24th March 2024
Reference Sources
https://theweek.com/articles/889866/monarchies-are-gradually-disappearing
https://time.com/6245342/prince-harry-prince-william-spare-feud/
Links
- The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy
- UCL Constitution Unit
- Professor Robert Hazell
- Dr Bob Morris