Tuesday 13 December 2011


Are you worried about the future?

Well don't be. Because by June next year all this austerity stuff will be in the past.

How do I know that?

Simple. We we will be able to afford a royal barge... Well, I hope we will, because we are getting one.

No, I lie, we aren't actually getting one, so much as borrowing a luxury Thames steamer from its owner, a guy called Philip Morrell, (look out for his name in the honours list sometime soon) and doing it up a bit. 

We are taking the boat and making it into one of the splendid barges that transported royals in the 17th century when, presumably, they had plenty of money. And we are going to have a pageant. Well, we are not going to have a pageant. London is going to have a pageant. We are just going to help to pay for it.

Resplendent in Red and Gold, the barge will carry the Queen and the Duke down the river, with a flotilla of 1000 small ships and boats. There is even a Pageant Master, Adrian Evans (look out for his name in the honours list sometime soon). 

The barge will be adorned with flowers from the royal gardens. Floral displays in red, gold and purple will be created by Rachel de Thame (look out for her name in the honours list sometime soon).

Mr Evans said that the royal barge must be a jewel. Well, yes, I can see that. We wouldn't expect any less, rich old lot that we are.

The Queen and the Duke, along with other members of their extended family who will be joining them, will be seated on ornate chairs under a canopy of gold on the top deck of the boat. The sides will be covered in rich red drapes and the Queen's cypher will be engraved on the bow, beneath a crown.

And all this for only a couple of hours' pageant... after which the barge will be handed back to the generous Sir Philip, I mean Mr Morrell (What am I saying? You didn't read it here if anyone asks), and it will be worth at least 100 times what it is worth now.

So, by my reckoning, if we will be able to afford all that by next June, we should be able to afford to leave cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy off our hit list of lazy work shy layabouts. Huh, Mr Duncan Smith?

In truth I don't grudge the Queen a celebration. She has done that stinking job for 65 long years; she's never really had a private life; she's been lumbered with a family from hell and a series of prime ministers (with whom she has been forced to spend time) that you would cross a continent or six to avoid.

And she has gone down in history as the longest reigning monarch since...well you tell me...so I reckon we should give the old dear a big thank you. As Munguin said, other people get a gold watch.

But this ostentatious celebration is surely not right at a time when so many of us are suffering so badly. 

Unless Fred Goodwin and some of his grubby associates would like to volunteer to pay for the junket?


  1. Come come, don't be nasty to the Queen.

    She is our sovereign after all...

  2. I wasn't Dean.

    I said that she deserves our thanks for all that she has done, and mostly put up with.

    Sorry, but Thatcher went round the palace most weeks for 10 bloody years... ye gads, what a nightmare, then she had 10 years of that Blair chappy and then just imagine having that dour old bugger Brown. You'd always worry he was gonna throw his phone at you. Finally she has Cameron:

    Footman: Ma'am The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron is here.

    Queen: Oh tell him one has gone out, would you Fortherington.

    We're in tough times. Let's give her a wee party... just a few friends and a few drinks, and a lovely watch with her name and dates on it.

    I bet, if you ask her, that's what she and Phil would prefer at their age.


  3. Actually the monarchy was skint in the 17th Century, one of the causes of the English Civil War

    Another was a new, imposed, Prayerbook

    Luckily there's nothing like that going on NOW by Gove!

  4. Wee Govey up to his tricks again.

    Everyone has to read Milton and Dryden, no matter how dull it is and he's gonna make them read a prayer book too???

    Lord love us but he's a daft wee git.

  5. The Queen is no longer our sovereign Dean. She has handed our sovereignty over to Brussels on many occassions . Contrary to the oath she made to us on her coronation. She no longer has the right to rule over us as she signed it away.

  6. Tris.....you were quite kind to the Queen and her service to the nation. But I must take a different view than yours of the forthcoming jubilee celebrations. Austerity be damned I say! (As long as the really costly stuff will be financed by private sources, not public tax money.) England blew the Golden Jubilee with one of its centerpiece events being the "Party at the Palace", an awkward and embarrassing pop concert. Disgraceful for a thousand year old monarchy. The Queen appeared embarrassed onstage, as she should have been.

    The British can now redeem yourselves with an appropriate Diamond Jubilee celebration. An event of this magnitude is SO rare and SO historic to the nation that......in the paraphrased words of John Adams for another occasion.......it ought to be commemorated as a day of Jubilee; with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, up and down the country, from one end of this island to the other.

    How MUCH more appropriate is that 16th century royal barge (privately financed), than the disgraceful pop concert that the young princes put together ten years ago. NEVER let kids plan great historical commemorations.

    A small quibble Tris, you mentioned 65 years of service on the part of the Queen. It's surely 60 on the Diamond Jubilee year. And then:

    "And she has gone down in history as the longest reigning monarch since....well you tell me......."

    OH, thank you! Since VICTORIA of course as you know. She passed George III earlier this year (214 days ago by Wiki math), leaving only Victoria with a longer reign. She will pass Victoria in 3 years, 271 days (also Wiki math). Then a REAAALY BIG celebration will be called for.

    My view.....the British have a traditional monarchy with all the trimmings. They SHOULD have a republic, but you simply can't have it both ways. For better or worse, a traditional monarchy requires grand royal celebrations (preferably financed by wealthy guys in search of a Knighthood). There should be no such thing as a modest little Diamond Jubilee (see next comment).

  7. What do I think of the Queen; I don't.

    To misquote The 'Prisoner':
    "I am not a subject; I am a citizen."


    How many times have you told me that she is not the legal heir to the throne?

    I am still [for the third time] drawing out the royal families of Europe and it shows that all the royal families of Europe can trace their lines back to several tribes which poured out of Scandinavia between 400 years before to just after the Roman Empire collapsed. Even in Scotland the Stewart's [Stewards] came from a Norman knight called Flaad and the Bruce's line came [probably] from a Breton Knight.
    To annoy my English friends, during discussions on history, [which rarely happens on building sites] I asked them to name the last Anglo-Saxon King of England. When they come up with the usual answers I answer to them that there has NEVER been an Anglo-Saxon King of England and their history is just a myth. To which I leave them to ponder this thought while I retreat with a wicked smile.

  8. America, in the not too distant past, had something like a jubilee year. And we blew it. It was the bicentennial year of the American revolution in 1976. It was deserving of a great national celebration equivalent to the Centennial International Exhibition of 1876 in Philadelphia.

    But it was a time of "austerity" and unimaginative little politicians who (in a republic) become heads of state. After years of dithering, the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission, charged by Congress with making plans for an appropriate celebration, just gave up. There would be no great national celebration at Philadelphia or Boston or anywhere else (the cost of which would have been minuscule to individual taxpayers). There would be a few extra large fireworks displays, and a little fiddling with coin designs that year.

    It was true to the spirit of austerity, but times of austerity come and go. And the times for great celebrations by great nations once they pass, never come again.

    Only the Queen saved us with her 1976 state visit. It's a supreme irony that the most glittering and historic events of the American revolution bicentennial year were officiated by the Queen with, as she said at the White House, a "gallant disregard for history."

    God Save the Queen, and her diamond jubilee year, and that COOL royal barge!

  9. Monty: That is the problem with everything being supposedly done in the Queen's name. Not so in Scotland, but assumed to be anyway.

    You know as well as I do that she cannot REALLY be held responsible for all the ghastly acts, whatever they be, of betrayal of prime ministers as awful as there have been since 1951.

    She didn't take the UK into the Common Market. It was Edward Heath. She didn't organise a referendum, Harry Wilson did.

    She didn't sign single markets or and of the other treaties, her prime ministers did.

    I find myself in the strange position of supporting the Queen here. She couldn't stop any of this without causing a constitutional crisis of gigantic proportions.

    I disapprove of Monarchy; I disapprove of the money that is wasted on useless members of this woman's family, but no one, even you can lay responsibility for the EU on her.

  10. Danny: My embarrassment knows no boundaries. For some silly reason, I was thinking that she was 65 years on the throne, when simple arithmetic would have told me that 2011 and 1951 were 60 years apart.

    If it's only 60 years then it is less than Victoria 1837-1901.

    I hang my head in shame.

  11. You're right Gedguy. Dean has often said that he favours the alternative royals.

    I prefer none, but with certain exceptions I see no reason to be rude about them. Largely it's the system and not the people who are at fault.

    Charles has an over inflated sense of right, as does Andrew and his two lazy daughters. Michael and his pushy wife are just disgusting. Philip is an ass but more to be laughed at than anything else.

    Frankly the rest as far as I can see, get on with doing their duties.

    I think it's a pity for them really. It's not natural in the 21st century to live in such a ridiculous way.

  12. Oh Tris.....I'm always distressed beyond words when I must point out minor mistakes in the blog. But you may sense that it also makes my day. ;-) ;-)

    Actually, NEXT year is the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign. (She ascended the throne on 6 February 1952, not 1951.) That's why the Brits are celebrating a DIAMOND JUBILEE next year.....a 60 year anniversary.

    If THIS year were the 60th year, then that Jubilee thingy next year would be a celebration of a 61st anniversary. Almost as inexplicable for a Diamond Jubilee as if this year were the 65th year, in which case the Jubilee next year would be a 66th anniversary celebration.

    I DO agree that the WAY cool royal barge would be inappropriate for either a 61st or a 66th anniversary celebration of HM the Q's reign.

    But don't hang your head in shame Tris. It's not surprising that Americans in some ways take this royalty stuff, with its attendant dates, more seriously than the Brits, and surely more seriously than Scottish republicans.


  13. Danny:

    I can see a point there. If you are going to have something, have something proper. Indeed some historian, maybe Bagehot, said that if you are going to have a monarchy, it should be spectacular.

    I'm inclined to disagree. The Scandinavian monarchs aren't like that; the Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourgian or Lichtenstein ones either. The only ones who put on the same level of pageantry might be the Monegasque lot.

    But then, they have the money (and no taste).

    If private enterprise pays for it they expect to sit in the House of Lords or at least get knighthoods out of it.

    No, like the idiotic Olympics where budgets for showiness are doubled, they should have shown solidarity with the peasantry here and gone for something simple.

    We are telling Cancer patients with their hair falling out, vomiting, weak and ill that they should be looking for work; hauling them before the hated Department of Work and Pensions to be told to get out there and look for a job (and of course we cut their entitlements); we are cutting payments to pensioners. All to save money.

    I realise that these royals who have n idea what hunger or cold are, don't cost us more than a ten pounds per person per year, but it is the impression that their ostentatiousness gives.

    'You are poor and cold; we are taking a magnificent boat down the Thames. You are paying for it.'

    No wonder they are doubling and more the budget for security, buying up water canon and flash weaponry, to use against their own people. They may well have need of it.

    I hope they have enough. They haven't got any friends in Europe to lend them anything.

  14. Oh Lord Danny:

    I even made mistakes when correcting my mistakes.

    Yes, it was 1952 not 1951, and next year is 2012 not 2011.


    What an idiot.

    I dount that the Queen would get that kind of treatment in Scotland. She would be warmly received and courteously dealt with, but in Scotland she is Queen of Scots, not of Scotland. Whilst still rather grand, it's certainly not the same sort of thing as the English monarchy.

    I think that if we didn't have to do everything the English way, our monarchs would be more like the continental ones. They'd use trains and buses and do their own shopping... or like the Queen of Denmark, Faeroe and Greenland... they would sew their own dresses!

    Oh well...

    I don't suppose you Americans would like to pay for all this nonsense, would you?

  15. I meant 'Oh Lord, Danny'... not 'Oh Lord Danny' as I typed... It's not been my day! :)

  16. tris..

    "I find myself in the strange position of supporting the Queen here. She couldn't stop any of this without causing a constitutional crisis of gigantic proportions."

    That's true. She forfeited her right to rein because she didn't want a constitutional crisis. Every EU Treaty was signed off by her. Every new PM was signed off by her. Her Coronation oath forbade her from ceding power to another yet she's done it over and over again.
    She is very weak.

  17. Here's part of her oath..

    Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

    And the Queen answering,

    I am willing.

    The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

    Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

    Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

    Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

    Queen. I will.

    She's signed away many of our laws to a foreign jurisdiction ( the EU parliaments, ECHR, ECJ, )

  18. Exactly my point, Monty. All of this is nonsense. She can't do any of it, so why do we say that it is her name. Church and state, both the same.

    She would have to usurp the power of the prime minister.

    Tony Blair says, "OK George, we'll kill all these Iraqis with you", and orders the forces to KILL KILL KILL.

    The Queen says "NO"

    Blair say "YES"

    Where would that leave us?

    She was elected by no one: at least he had a third of all the voters that could be bothered getting off their lazy fat backsides to vote in what they laughingly call an election.

    It's not very democratic, but it is a lot more so than a monarch.

    It's the same with EU treaties.

    It isn't her that signs. It's the prime minister, albeit on her behalf. She says "Don't sign it Margaret" Margaret says "Yes, Yes, Yes".

    What is the Queen going to do. Lock Maggie in the Tower, when she was elected by the people...?

  19. No Tris, it's not Lord Danny. More to the point it's not even Sir Danny, Knight of the Garter, which as you know I'm mightily annoyed about. ;-)

    I take your point about the big Royal show. But at some place in the body politic, the people of England, through their representatives in Parliament (who could change things), have decided that they want a monarchy with all the trimmings.....unlike the Scandinavians who made a different political choice. Being fabulously wealthy, the Prince of Liechtenstein probably lives as lavishly as the Windsors, but just doesn't put on such a show about it.

    No, the Americans certainly have shown not the slightest desire to help pay the bill for the royals. You might recall that the American way was to form a revolutionary army and start shooting at the British. Our experience is that the royalist sympathizers clear out pretty quickly when the bullets start flying. ;-)

  20. You'll get the Thistle one day... You don't want that horrid garter thing. Thatcher's got that. (Makes it sound like a nasty dose of something!)

    And you're probably right about Hans-Adam. I must try to cultivate him. He's richer than Croesus.

    If you don't want to pay, I guess you Americans could send over your security guys with their guns as you threatened to unless they beefed up the security at the Olympics.

    The next day the sum for security was more than doubled. Jeez America costs the UK SO much money! :)

  21. Talk about bad taste. It looks like one of those floating Chinese restaurants!

  22. tris..

    The new treaties all need Royal Ascent so effectively she has forfeited the rule of law in our courts . This is why Freeman of the Land get away with ignoring
    the courts. The Crown can be challenged on whether they are legal or not since the head of their justice system has ceded powers to Europe illegaly and against her oath.
    So although it looks like a rubber stamping exercise when she agrees with dave or whoever, technically she has removed the power of her courts. At the opening of troughminster she always says 'My Government will blah lies lies etc...'. Not 'The govt.....'

  23. Munguin....good point. It does have an overwrought Oriental look about it. Like something out of the King and I. But then the Windsors were never known for good taste.

  24. Royal dragon boat racing on the Thames a new tourist industry and give those Lords and Ladies something to do in their spare time.

  25. You're not really answering what would happen if she defied her legally elected government and ministers.

    What would our partners so? Go with what the Queen says or the prime minister says?

    What would the forces do... take orders for her or Dave?

    What would the courts do take her word of the justice secretaries' in which ever state?

    And what would you do?

  26. This is the Thai royal barge, Danny. The English one looks more like it's a floating Chinese Restaurant. Maybe that's what it will be when they have finished their pageantry.


  27. I wonder if they would find a way to claim expenses while they were doing it CH... Silly question. Of course they would. England their England.

  28. Tris,

    The armed forces would take their orders from the Queen, which is why they gave the oath.
    Which was why, in 1973, there was a coup d'tat in the UK where the democratically elected government of the UK was thrown out; and quite right too.

  29. Tris

    As I said, you should have a corrections / edit button.

  30. Tris/Gedguy

    I do prefer the alternative option, but, so long as Queen Elizabeth II sits on the throne as de facto, I still believe we owe her deferential respect.

    Monty, The queen can always be a sovereign representative, just of the British state of the Federal Union ;) A bit like the 'Duke of Bavaria' was still duke of Bavaria under the Prussian Reich.

  31. Gedguy:

    I never heard about the coup d'etat.

  32. LOL Wolfie. Sometimes it would be handy. I didn't half haver this morning... Just as well our man in America has his head screwed on the right way. :)

  33. I'm afraid I only have respect for those who warrant it, and deference for none, because, as Dave would say, "we're all in this together" and as Mr Speaker would say,..."all are equal".

    I have the impression that both these idiots have far too much to say for themselves.

  34. Tris....Well, the King of Thailand has a very nice boat - considerably more grand than the floating Chinese restaurant. Maybe Edinburgh could just loan the Queen her old boat, HMY Britannia, for use during the jubilee year. ;-)

  35. Tris,

    The coup d'tat happened because under the Wilson government any information handed to MI5/6, from the CIA, was immediately passed on to the KGB. At that time the Labour party and the Unions were so riddled with KGB informants [I was shocked when KGB papers were released which showed that Jack Jones, the leader of the TUC, was a paid informant for the KGB] that our security services were leaking like a fridge. The CIA had a word with the Earl Mountbatten and asked him to deal with this or the USA would 'deal' with it. The Earl contacted the military chiefs and a cover story was put out, when the troops came on the streets and we had tanks at Heathrow airport, that this was an exercise in case of terrorism. At the time it seemed logical because of the IRA bombings so we all fell for it 'hook, line and sinker'.
    It wasn't until the 'Times' released the story, years later, that we knew what had happened. I also suspect that the Earl was blown up by the IRA on the instructions of the KGB who were 'pissed off' that their efforts in securing the UK establishment for their own purposes was all in vain. Which is why I believe that the relationship between the UK and Russia is so bad. The UK establishment don't like their own lot getting killed off.
    I'll try to find the article again and post it on this blog for your inspection.
    Which, is why I believe the military will always back the crown first and foremost.

  36. Allegedly, Allegedly, Allegedly

    Note well above

    It was well rumoured that Baroness Ashtray, late on CND was a fully paid up member of the KGB fifth column and when Gordon Brown appointed her as van Rumpuy's deputy, after Tony Blair was blocked, her appointment took weeks to be confirmed. Why

    She couldn't get a security clearance until it was pointed out that Barosso had been a Maoist in his "youth"

    It is all piss, vinegar, smoke and mirrors anyway.

    They are all lizards in humanoid body suits.

  37. Wurrafuk do I know.

    I am only a Panda who really is a Wolf wanting to be a Gorilla.

    In fact I am Baroness Ashcroft.

  38. Lupus Incomitatus,

    Are you saying that there was no coup d'tat, or are you disagreeing [which you have the right to] with my suspicions at the end about Mountbatten's death? I'm not too sure myself about his death but it all makes sense when Mountbatten had been using that boat for years in N.I. with no trouble from the IRA. I may have took two and two and came to five but I wouldn't be surprised if this is what happened to Mountbatten.

  39. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your Gedeguy.

    I think, on the balance of probability, you are correct.

    Jack Jones was a fifth columnist as were several cabinet ministers of the Wilson era. For that matter there was also the residue of Oxbridge communists, who had infiltrated the security services; Blake etc.

    The lid on that and Harold Wilson was blown by a retired MI 5/6 civil servant Peter Wright who emigrated and published his meoirs / expose ther to avoid UK D notices. It was called Spycatcher.

    Here is a ref to the wikipedia entry


    As for my second post, I was being ironic; or was I?

    The World of spooks is more convoluted and Byzantine than anything imaginable.

  40. Lupus Incomitatus,

    Thanks for the link. I had forgotten about the assassination of Hugh Gaitskell. Makes one think about John Smith and his 'sudden' death on the mountains sounds a bit like what happened to Willie McRae and his 'suspicious' death. I wouldn't put it passed the security services to do this. However, I still maintain that the coup d'tat was the correct course to take to enable 'establishment' to stop the UK from falling deeper into the stranglehold of the KGB.
    I've maintained for a few years now that the third World War started straight after the end of the Second World War. We didn't see it as the fighting was happening abroad [outside of Europe], apart from the IRA, Black September and the Red Brigade. Around the world countries were 'taken over' by either the USA or the USSR and the wars were fought there. I also believe that one of functions of the New World Order was the eventual eradication of those 'puppets' put in place, by either side, and the bringing of a form of democracy. I think the reason why it took so long was because those 'puppets' had a knife at the throat of the CIA which was the threat to release the CIA's presence in the formation of those 'puppets'.
    You are correct in saying that the world of the spooks is so convoluted that what we know is just the tip of the iceberg. I always believed that the magazine 'Readers Digest' was a front for the CIA who could pose as journalists.
    Sadly, the first casualty of war is the truth and it is only by sifting through all the red herrings that a tiny fragment of the truth is revealed.
    I also believe that Scotland is in the middle of a UK 'black ops' campaign against the SNP as the UK are so frightened to lose Scotland and the money that it puts into the UK treasury.

  41. Lupus Incomitatus,

    I've just noticed which industry that you are in. Looks like I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge on this subject.

  42. Have you anything to do with this site?


  43. The Blogger identity is just a joke and I have no connection to the website. Maybe I should sue them backwards for half inching my moniker.

    Lone Wolf is just my way of saying I am in no political party nor will I because I will not accept conformity to a central ideal because it so easily corrupted.

  44. Danny. What a good idea.

    And, taking it forward, instead of all the celebrations being concentrated on England, we could have them in this country

    Thus we would benefit from all that tourist money that always goes to London, London, London when ever the UK hosts anything...

    Brilliant. Sorted. I'll have a word in the right ear... or the left one, which ever :)

  45. Wolfie, Gedguy

    All sounds probably. Wilson didn't have memory loss any more than that lying old git Chirac.

    They just let him off as long as he didn't do anything and lived most of the time on his little island in Cornwall.

    Of course it could be asked why the secret service hadn't found out about Wilson years and years before...

    Wasn't there some old man in the palace that was a spy too?

    And I agree that the government will try to undermine by any means possible fair or foul including assassination.

    Salmond keeps getting the better of Cameron. He is winning the argument. Not surprisingly.

    They know that if they punish Scotland too much by shutting bases, and putting any new enterprise in England, we will only be more determined that we are getting a unfair slice of the cake.

    But before they start planning any demises, I'd simply warn them that that kind of thing tends to build up sympathy for the cause of the deceased.

    If they want us to all become very British they should look for some way to make us sympathetic to the British state...

    I suppose there are some of their own that could be sacrificed. There are plenty who contribute very little, or indeed negatively...

  46. Tris,

    I don't believe for one second that the UK's secret services would target Salmond; they are not that stupid. What they are more likely to do, which backs up your point, is to arrange an 'incident' where some idiot Scot is conned into a terrorism act. This has been done in Scotland in the past. This, if handled correctly by the UK government , would allow the troops to 'protect' the interests of the state [UK] from 'terrorists'. of course, the UK would have to depend on Salmond not laughing at their feeble attempt to create an incident and that the cybernats are asleep for several weeks.
    The point is that governments just don't realise the power that internet users have. We have seen their effects in Egypt, Algeria, Libya and even Thailand. The Chinese seem to be the only people who are attempting, and failing, to control the internet.

  47. Well no, I don't think they will directly target Salmond, although I refute your notion that they are not that stupid.

    And I agree that the internet can be used most effectively, which is doubtless why that half witted home secretary wanted to shut down social networking sites during the riots...

    Unthinking doubtless of the consequences, and of course of the fact that these things are controlled from elsewhere by businesses which wouldn't maybe be too happy at losing the advertising revenue. Ahhh capitalism.