How Does the British Monarchy Get Away with It?

“Power does what it wants. [...] Forget the politicians, they’re an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything.[...] they own this fucking place. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in ‘the big club.’”

- George Carlin

Picture: Carfax2 (CC)

The absurd suggestion that the UK’s un-democratically selected Royal Family are nothing more than decoration has come crashing down as a court order forced the establishment to reveal how things really work behind the scenes. Despite Royalists constantly pushing the myth their monarch performs a ‘ceremonial role’, the truth is very different. In fact the approval of, Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness Prince Charles, has been required for at least 39 different bills suggested by elected members of Britain’s Houses of Parliament.

The Guardian reports:

The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles’s secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals’ little-known power to consent to or block new laws.

FULL STORY FROM THE GUARDIAN HERE.

There is a curious level of Orwellian doublethink in the UK when it comes to the Royal Family, I try to explain this further at the end of the article. Anti-monarchists often feel those who disagree with them are apparently hypnotised into ignoring the reality of their situation. I remember being dumb-struck by someone I was debating the issue with on a London radio station who, with apparent sincerity, announced that the Royals were “just a symbol, it doesn’t mean anything”. It was incredible to me then and it still is now: this person actually believed in, and was prepared to defend the concept of, a symbol that does not symbolise or mean anything.

The Telegraph reports:

Legal scholar John Kirkhope, who fought to access the papers following a freedom of information case, said the document revealed senior royals have “real influence and real power”.

“There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable,” he said.

[...]

Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, said the findings showed the Royals “are playing an active role in the democratic process”.

He called for greater transparency in order to evaluate whether the powers were “appropriate.”

“This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role,” he said.

“It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was.”

[My emphasis]

FULL STORY FROM THE TELEGRAPH HERE.

Currently the UK Government is pursuing a policy of cutting back state welfare benefits. I suggest they start with those given to the monarchy through another rarely discussed, and constantly downplayed, aspect of the monarchy: the civil list.

The frustrating thing about this debate though (from the perspective of someone who believes the monarchy is an un-democratic, un-fair, outdated, bulls–t embarrassment) is the fact that vested interests in the world of both the media (who want a Knighthood or MBE) and politics (same problem) work furiously behind the scenes to keep the truth about the UK’s entirely un-accountable heads of state secret:

From Politics.co.uk

The revelation comes after parliamentary lawyers were forced to release a document the government had fought to keep secret in an unsuccessful freedom of information battle.

That it is even allowed to be freely reported to Her Majesty’s subjects is unusual.

Again from The Guardian:

The Cabinet Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a 15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate studies at Plymouth University.

It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.

An American friend of mine once asked: “but how do they get away with it?”.

In closing here are 5 key ways I believe the monarchy manages to hold its iron grip on the hearts and minds of their subjects in the United Kingdom. I fully expect and hope these ideas will be fleshed out and added to by Disinfo’s famously articulate comments section:

1, The power of association: “Queen and country”.

The power of association is widely known in advertising. Brands which have no direct link to something positive can benefit from an association to something the consumer loves or respects. The easiest way to do this is by simple repetition. The alliterative mantra “Queen and Country” makes people believe there is something intrinsically patriotic about blindly supporting them, rather than daring to imagine a nation which stand on its own two feet and looks after itself.

2, The science of behaviourism, “Come on stop being such a stick in the mud lets have a party!”

Behaviourism suggests that if you do something, no matter what your conscious mind believes, subconsciously you will agree with the ideas the action suggests. For example, people who spend time smiling for no reason tend to feel happier. The recent Royal jubilee and Royal wedding celebrations are good examples of this in action on a nationwide scale. Despite a great number of people not affirming a belief in the idea of a hereditary monarchy there were still a large number of well attended state sponsored parties to celebrate the Royals. Lots of friends of mine went along despite not being monarchists. Nationwide, inevitably approval ratings soared, and continue to rise. On a smaller scale, more than ever before these days, my anti-monarchist sentiments are being challenged and debated by people who previously might have agreed.

3, The power of a promise, “I promise to serve Her Majesty The Queen”

All of the top members of the establishment in the UK, sitting members of Parliament, Judges, Magistrates, Police Officers, Clergy, and the military, have to swear allegiance to the monarch in order to do their duties. These oaths are common in other parts of the UK as well. In a sense this is an extension of behaviourism and the affirmation is perhaps a form of mild self hypnosis.

4, They have the power to patronise you with an MBE, OBE or simply their association: “I could make things good for you and your family”.

 I remember once being in the office of a major media organisation, framed above the desk of the boss was a letter from a senior member of The Royal Family thanking them for their help with some charity work. Then and there it dawned on me why criticism of The Royals is so rare in the “mainstream media”.

5, The power of celebrity: “Oh, it’s not fair is it, those horrible paparazzi”

To think that the Royals do not make arrangements with the press is as absurd as the now defunct notion that their role in law making is purely for fun and games. The level of access some photographers, even apparently rogue ones, get is staggering. This is one of the richest families in the world with one of the world’s biggest powers protecting them. Being famous celebrities brings a form of power that is easy to underestimate until you see it close up.

There must be other reasons, I look forward to reading the comments section.

If you are from the UK and you’ve gotten all the way down to the bottom of this article without screaming “traitor” you might like to consider following this link and re-tweeting a tweet of mine which reads: “RT if you agree “benefit cuts” should start with The Royal Family“.

Nick Margerrison.

, ,

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Supertramp/100002572127399 Matt Supertramp

    im welsh FUCK THE ENGLISH ONLY ! ROYAL FAMILY

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      Mostly German actually.

      • Ittabena

        True, I was trying to tell a guy that tonight and he looked at me like I was crazy. Truth be told, almost no one knows this. What was the German name? Hoehnzollern, wasn’t it?

        • cakey pig

          From Wikipedia: The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of his family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I.

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            Right. Princess Di was Scottish, though.

          • cakey pig

            Um no actually.

            She was born in England, at Sandringham in Norfolk. And as for her family… “The Spencer family is one of Britain’s most illustrious aristocratic families. This noble family descended in the male line from Henry Spencer, claimed to be a descendant of the cadet branch of the ancient House Le Despencer (died c. 1478), male-line ancestor of the Earls of Sunderland, the Dukes of Marlborough, and the Earls Spencer. Two prominent members of the family were Winston Churchill andDiana, Princess of Wales.”

          • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

            These geneological arguments could go on forever:

            http://www.truebritsjournal.co.uk/links/diana13.htm

            The Point is, these European royals (and aristocrats) are more closely related to each other then whatever country they happen to be born into ruling. Like for example King Juan Carlos of Spain is descended from Queen Victoria and married Sophia, Princess of Greece and Denmark.

            Obviously Spanish, Greeks and Danes are people of different ethnicity. They speak different languages and have different cultures, but they are linked by the same Royal Familes.

          • ghanderman

            well of course they are. theres no such thing as a “nation” only a “plantation” with the “noble” masters who recognize no peer other than other “masters”. they would not deign to breed with commoners. want to know where racism came from? it originated with the “nobles” whose inbred mental deviance is why the world is the way it is today. kill them all…give the world a fighting chance.

          • Ittabena

            Thank you

          • Ittabena

            I believe though that there was another name change earlier when the Germans actually took over the throne in the first place. I mean long ago.

          • ghanderman

            you mean back in the 1050s or whatever? wasnt that during william the conqueror’s time?

        • Lena Helena

          Ittabena -Go to fuggingmonarchy website for further information. Best regards.

    • Jason Whattam

      c’mon man… we’re all the same, Welsh, English, whatever.. United we stand divided we fall. The 99% must stand together and rise.

  • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

    I heard it costs a million pounds a year to heat Buckingham Palace.

    I guess David Icke is right again. He’s said all along they have real power.

    I think Royalty is a symbol of the Aristocracy, basically the landed gentry. I think they could be figureheads for the most part, but they serve the interests of the aristocracy. And they are all connected to all the other European royals by blood, marriage, etc. and thus also to the rest of European Nobility.

    Hereditarily they are born with various levels of ability and inability. So many of them have been weak, mentally deficient, sickly etc. Probably some have stronger more take charge personalities But the power behind the throne has been the aristocracy. That’s my opinion, from researching them. Titled aristocrats are not an anachronism in terms of power, like some want everyone to believe. Just look at this family:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurn_und_Taxis

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      Click on Gloria’s picture and you get a video tour of the palace. I guess, I’m glad there are places like this. Its interesting to me. But its not a manifestation of democracy obviously. Most people must have wanted aristocracy during much of history. Its the way people’s efforts were organized. Maybe they took pride in building things like this, just like ancient Egyptian slaves. Obviously most people are better off under egalitarian democracy then as illiterate serfs and slaves. But Aristocracy definitely produced a lot of beautiful things.

      • kowalityjesus

        I’m really happy that someone said that. We don’t want to want to fall too far into ‘arrogant proletariat’ mode. Aristocracy has, not neglecting grievous inhumanities, been the arbiter of magnificent art and massive public works since time immemorial.

        There is a reason why these people are on top; it may be trivial or criminal at worst, but it is by no means arbitrary.

        • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

          I have complex views on this. In the middle ages, before the use of gunpowder I think Royalty was based more on a True Aristocracy, an Elite warrior caste. Like Samurai. The Chevaliers were pretty magnificent.

          But it was a complex process of turning a bunch of Barbarian Warlord’s into Chevalier. The Church played a big role in it. It was a refining process of sublimating these base war like drives. I’ve studied the Normans quite a bit and they built some amazing Gothic Cathedrals, from the spoils of their Warfare all over Europe and the Middle East.

          These guys were the real deal. We aren’t talking about drone warfare. They fought from horseback with lances and swords. William the Conqueror lost four horses out from under him in the battle of Hastings. Each time he killed the man that killed his horse in the battle. The English didn’t know how to fight from horse back. So really it was a martial arts competition. The Norman’s had superior skill in battle.

          They deposed a lot of the Former Anglo Saxon Aristocracy, in England and actually brought an end to slavery. They also restored some Farmland into a forest preserve and Created the New Forest. Aristocracy literally means “rule by the best” and I think at one point it was really true and lots of other people took pride in this and supported it. In a sense the Aristocracy belonged to everyone and benefited everyone.

          This is one side of the equation. Not saying I can’t play the Devil’s advocate from the other side also.

          • ghanderman

            being the most savage bloodthirsty and violent doesnt mean you are “the best”. it just means you are a savage bloodthirsty and violent parasite whos willing to do things most decent people would not.

        • ghanderman

          its a moot argument. its like saying none of that would have been possible without social parasites like the aristocracy. actually, MORE probably would have been possible, and in a much more pro-social less parasitic way. its like arguing that the pedophile who has raped a boy for years made it possible for him to grow up into a strong man bc of the experience of being raped. he would have grown into a strong many anyway, but far less effed up and with far less pain bc of the pervert.

    • Ittabena

      Have to agree on this one Ted. If you watch the film “The Queen” Tony Blair’s wife mentions how much the Royal Family costs each year. I don’t remember the figure but it was huge! The idea that Great Britain would spend that much money on a symbolic family is beyond gullible. I mean this is just basic common sense!

    • http://stock-index-options-alert.blogspot.com/ Tom Chechatka

      Check out Against Oligarchy for an interesting elaboration on how British aristocracy came to be.

  • echar

    To support your 4th point: the power to patronize

    Just now I am watching Gerry Spence: Legendary Lawyer For Lawyer For Truth and Justice (I will post the link at the bottom), In the video he talks about how everyone has their sins. He goes on to say what one of his sins was, how he came to be a lawyer for the insurance companies. Not to mention that these lawyers were the rich and powerful ones, and not the ones who worked for the people. Anyhow, the way he became an insurance lawyer was by beating them, they offered him a job.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcOgQnpzZr8

  • InfvoCuernos

    Something I read recently that has me re-thinking my own beliefs in England is that the wrong side won at Waterloo. For so long the west, and especially the Anglo west-the commonwealth and the US- has bought hook like and sinker into the idea that Napoleon was a tyrant and not a liberator spreading democracy throughout Europe. I am coming to understand that the sun never set on the British Empire, it simply stepped down from center stage, sort of like the royal family here pretending that they don’t make any decisions.

    • echar

      A parasite grows fat and nourished by remaining hidden.

    • MoralDrift

      I wont go as far to say that Napoleon was a liberator….I think he was an excellent manipulator of the situation… That being said your point on the British Empire merely stepping aside while really pulling the strings is something I subscribe to. In my view, most American foreign policy actions are merely the targets of an attack dog let loose by its mistress who doesn’t want her hands to get dirty.

    • kowalityjesus

      my irreconcilable authority on that matter is Ludwig van Beethoven, who scratched out the dedication on his 3rd symphony to Napoleon and wrote “In memory of a great man.”

  • Haystack

    Question: when the article says “at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals’ little-known power to consent to or block new laws,” does this mean that they actually used said power, or merely that it exists?

  • BuzzCoastin

    How Does the British Monarchy Get Away with It?

    lots of compliant subjects
    totally ignorant of the scam
    would be my best guess

  • DrDavidKelly

    I was in London a little while ago and I was wondering something very similar. But when you go to England and visit its historic buildings, walk its ancient streets you start to realise that this royal shit is just everywhere. It is England. It’s like history and the monarchy have seeped into every crevice, every crumbling stone statue of the place. And what a rich (and bloody) history it is. You can’t speak of England without monarchy – it’s indivisible. And though they may now serve no useful purpose I believe it is this inseperable tie with the past that continues to validate them today.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=742104313 Adam Goodwin

    The reason is literally staring you right in the face. The English people use strips of cotton paper and metal tokens everyday with her grinning ugly mug. Every time someone who passes one of those two another person to obtain something of _real_ value, they are materially enriching her and her Bank, and they are ideologically vesting their confidence in the Sovereign to settle a debt, rather than their fellow human. This channels social confidence towards a centre-point–the Sovereign, and human communities slowly lose confidence in each other. This is the prototype strategy to the ‘divide-and-rule’ strategy of colonial powers. This is also how the state system operates in the central banking systems, which have now populated most of the world’s countries. That criminal family (Henry I) used to use notched (tally) sticks, for chrissakes, and no one caught on! You wanna get rid of this family? You’d best stop using their money.

    • Ittabena

      Uh, I believe you are mistaken. Have you forgotten about the Rothschild owned Central Bank? The very same one that we fought a revolution to get away from? Everything that is said about the Federal Reserve Bank is also true of Britain and the Central Bank there, except that it is controlled by one family. A different arm of the same family controls the French Central Bank, the German Central Bank and two others, I believe Italy and Switzerland are the other two countries that are Rothschild financed and manipulated.

      Luckily, we in the US can say with great pride that the Federal Reserve Bank is controlled by a group of bankers… who all owe their start to the family that controls the rest of the Central Banks of Europe. And isn’t that much better?

      Give me control of a nations currency and I care not who makes the laws.
      ~ Mayer Rothschild

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=742104313 Adam Goodwin

        Huh? How am I mistaken? Didn’t you spend two paragraphs writing in accord with what I wrote? Of course the Rothschilds own the central banks, but the Sovereign ceded his power to issue money in 1694 when he allowed the BoE to be established. It’s a deal between the two, just like every other central bank around the world is in a deal with its domestic government. As long as we use fiat currency, we support the existence of the government/Sovereign. That’s how they stay in power. How is that mistaken?

        • Ittabena

          I think if you look closer at 1694 you will find that this power was not ceded at all, but was a hostile takeover of the British economy, much like the ones that occur every time the US Stock Market hiccups. After the Rothschilds used inside information about the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo to cause panic and a market crash the rest was just a classic hostile takeover. You make it sound like they got together for tea and crumpets and decided that this would be for the best of the country. A deal between the two? What did the Royals get out of it? Interest on their own currency? More debt? Where I am from we don’t call that a deal, we call it a swindle. And Rothschild is what they used to refer to as a sharper.

          And you want to hang all this on the Queen and omit any mention of Rothschilds? Can’t understand how I got misled…

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=742104313 Adam Goodwin

            You’re fucked in the head. I don’t understand your logic at all.

          • Ittabena

            Good rebuttal. Bet you were captain of the debating team in College, huh? Why is it when all else fails, attack the opponent seems to be the only option left for the OSers? Sister Ann Marie would have never let us get away with that, even in fifth grade!

          • ghanderman

            its probably merely that ignorance is frustrating. and nonsense as well. but then, you think like a slave/servant so……..

        • Lena Helena

          Adam – The you will have no objection to us removing the absurd Sovereign’s head IN PERPETUITY until challenged that is – on all bank notes.

          • ghanderman

            yes! please remove the sovereign’s head :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/martin.oakley1 Martin Oakley

    Possibly it requires an outsiders point of view to see the tyranny in the everyday. Thank you America. God bless your patriots.

    • ghanderman

      yes indeed…..unfortunately, much as i love america the declaration of independence and the constituon, the parasites live there as well and are not that indistinguishable from the monarchy. america has worms just like england IS a worm

  • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

    A friend of mine in Canada was LIVID a few years back when the viceroy interrupted a parliamentary action on behalf of the Queen. She fully acknowledged that it was written into law that they could do that,
    but had not done so for so long that no one thought they ever would again, until they did.

    Another interesting fact, no one in Canada owns land, but you can borrow it from the Queen if you ask
    nicely and keep up on the rent.

    http://youtu.be/dOOTKA0aGI0

  • http://www.facebook.com/nathaniel.shippen Nathaniel Shippen

    As an American I can tell you it’s a drag to have to hear about the President’s (supposed) drunken brother or lesbian wife. It’d be nice to have a something like a Royal family to handle all the scandals while the actual politicians get on with running the country.

    • Lena Helena

      Nathaniel -the trouble in undemocratic Britain is that the royal scandals are covered up. Do you know that ALL the profligate royals are excluded from the Freedom of Information Act. In which case how is the public to get at the truth? Appalling!!

    • ghanderman

      politicians do not run america. corporations do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/raumffisch Walter Werner

    blah blah blah. they still own everything. either queen or some anonymous bankers. don’t forget they have brought about the world as we know it, with all the bad things you hate but also good things you love and take for granted. if anything lowlifes like us have to say was ever relevant we would still be hunter-gatherers.

    • ghanderman

      LOLOL! spoken like another true slave and servant to parasitism. speak for yourself, slave, the rest of us dont need a master to experience a rich inventive life.

  • http://twitter.com/WayneLockwood Wayne Lockwood

    The underlying argument to this is that our current ‘democracy’ is better than a monarchy when in reality the illusion of choice is just a different way of presenting the same dictatorship in which the act of voting is merely participation. At least a monarchy is an honest dictatorship.

  • Mr Ree

    It cost’s me 66p a year to keep the Royal family, a mars bar costs 70p. I don’t mind paying that, I think the royal family are pretty good at annoying the world, so if it costs me 66p to annoy the world the so be it. HA HA HA get over it.

    • Lena Helena

      Mr Ree – The trouble is that you believe the disinformation fed you on a daily drip basis. Pity.

    • ghanderman

      be silent slave.

  • emperorreagan

    From afar, it seems like there are basically two arguments about the British monarchy – “they’re expensive and sometimes embarrassing” on one side, versus “it’s tradition and the face of the country” on the other. It’s a can’t see the forest for the trees sort of issue, like people frequently have when they’re looking at power structures.

    The critical analysis of how power structures work, how power is being exercised in a particular case, etc. is lost between the shallow (monarchy as figurehead) and the fanciful (grand conspiracy theories). I don’t think it takes very much effort at all to keep the overall focus on one end or the other.

  • Tchoutoye

    How Does the British Monarchy Get Away with It?

    1. Ignore verbal criticism
    2. React to direct action with violence
    3. proceed to step 1

    • Lena Helena

      Non elected POWER!!!

    • ghanderman

      well, they cant do any of that unless their are antisocial slave/servants willing to do their dirty work for them.

  • echar
  • echar

    Looks like she needs to feed!

    We Suck Young Blood – Radiohead
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHSoLdrdnV4

  • Mr B

    ’2, The science of behaviourism, “Come on stop being such a stick in the mud lets have a party!”’

    That (potentially the most interesting) part of the article, had an irritatingly high number of non-sequiturs.

    Plus, there was neither a hint nor question as to WHY the monarchy (and jingoism generally) is inexplicably NOW so popular in the West; post 2008.
    I wasn’t even aware when the golden jubilee occurred; but the diamond one intruded on virtually every area of British life.
    Even my dishwasher tablets’ box had a Union flag printed across it’s face FFS.

  • alizardx

    What would happen to the UK Royal Family if they were to become ordinary citizens via Act of Parliament? They would merely be one of the world’s wealthiest multi-billionaires with famiky connections that literally go back centuries. And they’d be taxpayers somewhere.

    • ghanderman

      nope. strip them of ALL material wealth and property, try them as criminals for crimes against humanity, and put them in jail for the rest of their natural lives.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather Matt Prather

    How do they get away with it?

    The five reasons you offer are valid starting points.

    Regarding #3: “I promise to serve His/Her Majesty the The King/Queen”. Perhaps this promise or oath — above and beyond the behaviorist / psychological aspect — has actual legal bearing and a conspiracy of silence keeps this fact hidden.

    And I’d further add this analysis.

    “There is something behind the throne greater than the King himself.”

    “The more you are talked about the less powerful you are.”

    “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

    “There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”

    “The greatest trick The Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”

    The nature of the power of the ruling elite of the most powerful world order ever seen is that is unseen!

    It comes out of delivering welfare to the ignorant, through the spoils of warfare. Each person in the whole order accepts a role in the economic hierarchy, pleased at how well he has done for himself — usually there is some element of conspiracy involved on the part of individual (just the small-level conspiracy to un-altruistically and even dishonestly act to preserve or enhance one’s station and wealth), or perhaps there is no conspiracy and they are “competitive” for their spot and do not engage in conspiracy. People can see clearly down the hierarchy, but they have at best a hazy view of the hierarchy above them — however they believe The System above them works, they are usually wrong. But ignorant of their wrongness. And that suits well the individuals above them in the hierarchy, just as it suits the individual that others below him do not know the full facts of his station.

    At the level of the leading Executives of any hierarchy (State, Federal, Corporate, Monarchical, whatever), something interesting happens. The general public goes about their lives generally believing that the buck stops there. Maybe they believe or say that they think the bosses are all crooks, but in the way they live their lives they don’t really take the actions one would take if one really thought that a criminal gang member was above them in the hierarchy. They generally act as if they take the executives at their words. For all the rhetoric and hate out their right now on the internet about conspiracy in the U.S., people aren’t taking action to undo it. They do commerce and live their economic and political lives as if the system is honest.

    So, in fewer words, this “interesting thing” is that people wind up “believing” for all intents and purposes that they are free citizens of a government and economic-goods / consumer-goods delivery system that serves them. They have forgotten or ignored the true hierarchical nature of the system.

    This enables the ruling class — above the King, above the United States Executive, above it all — to be “invisible” to the people they rule.

    The Crown, for all the power it may have legally above The Government — and The Government, for all the power it may legally have over the people — is just a symbol or figurehead or sock-puppet or dummy or muppet or imagined hobgoblin or a non-corporeal entity which serves as a myth around which everyone can live their lives. If our world order or way of life could be said to be a “cult”, then the Crown and The Governments and even The Mega-Corporations would be the imaginary gods, or the sacred cows, or the superstitious cargo items that people ascribe cult belief to.

    In any case, they are just symbols or ideas which people believe in, when true power is exerted hierarchically by individual persons.

    It is important to note that when power is shared oligarchically, or oligopolisitically, or “by conspiracy”, it is still the choices and the powers of individual persons that act hierarchically.

    We can each see this in own little petty power hierarchies at the job or in our social networks (I use this term in the general sense, not specific to things like Facebook) — but we seem to be blinded to the fact of it at levels higher than The Governments. We seem to expect that it’s different at that level. But they’re just doing the same things we little petty conspirators are doing ourselves.

    So, the British Monarchy “gets away with it” by the collective self-imposed ignorance of the people who “want to believe” in nice little things that help them sleep at night, such as the idea that the world is run fairly by the democratic and liberal institutions the media tells them run the world.

    And finally, note the sort of “local maximum” stability of this Orwellian situation. To change it would be — as perceived by most individuals in these hierarchical systems — a “worse” change of life for most of the individuals at all levels of the hierarchy. The welfare-from-the-warfare would stop if we accused the ones providing it of crime, or seriously threatened them. Rather than risk one’s own psychological contentedness, or one’s personal piece of the pie in this system, the ultimately prefer to keep going and perhaps hope for some Superman On A White Horse to save things, or perhaps “learn to stop worrying and love the bomb, or whatever it is that keeps them going.

    • Lena Helena

      Matt – That is very true – the present oath is absurd. Please see comparison between German and British oath on fugging monarchy website.

  • Shauny Tofty

    great article, i’am cornish(britain) and deeply anti-royal. if anyone would like to read further about the powers the ‘duchy of cornwall’ wields over Kernow then click some of the links below. There have been some very eminent cornish individuals and groups heading the movement to expose the royal myth (john kirkthorpe among them). Those of us who are informed in cornwall (and britain) are grateful to our international friends who seek to perpetuate via any media possible the lies of our undemocratic establishment and the ancient feudal laws which oppress us and seek to undermine every attempt at questioning or peering inside the feudal nature of our so called democracy.
    All of the below links are fully referenced and contain many more links within them.

    http://www.cornishstanneryparliament.co.uk

    duchyofcornwall.eu

    http://www.savecornwall.org

  • http://xstaedtler.wordpress.com/ Staedtler

    If nothing else, and there is plenty else, I would still be against royalty on the grounds of aesthetics.

  • ghanderman

    they need to be tried and executed for crimes against humanity. and then the people need to snap the eff out of their stupid slobbering ignorance to make sure no one else tries to assume their vacant seats. stop being such willing slaves and servants you @$$holes…youre ruining it for the rest of us