181 thoughts on “The once and future king”

    1. I care because a constitutional monarch is infinitely preferential to a republican system – it is an established safeguard against the evils of corruption which plagues so many regimes with presidents as heads of state.

        1. Functions as a safegard for institutionalised corruption, undemocratic, archaic class system that ‘justifies’ social injustices. A society that can’t supply work for everyone while maintaining a pampered elite

          1. Kevin O’Neill: Are you serious ? Your post was expressed in decidedly Marxist/Leninist lingo -“not that there is anything wrong with that” to quote Seinfeld,but Marx and Lenin ? Are there no more contemporary social activists that you can draw on for quotes.I think that your Irish name explains your post.

          3. Kevin O’Neill’s comment is not at all expressed in Marxist/Leninist lingo. John Perkins, you’re plain wrong. It’s classic liberalism; not much that John Stuart Mill would disagree with.

            As for the sneer that his Irish Catholic name explains his ideas, he can retort for himself. But if I proposed that your surname might explain your love of hills, choral singing, rain, sheep, Rugby Union and burning down second homes, I think you might be offended; and rightly so.

          4. Dermot C: As a matter of I do love hills – my home is in a beautiful valley, surrounded by mountains, I still sing in a choir, I played Rugby Union until I was 35 – it’s 50 years since I gave it up – I have a platonic love of sheep given that my favourite meat is lamb.I’m afraid you lost me when you wrote that I liked burning down second homes or something. Sorry I like most of the things that you thought I might be offended at

          5. John, whether or not you actually conform to Welsh stereotypes is irrelevant – it is lazy and offensive to assume on the basis of someone’s name that they must come from a particular place, behave in certain ways or hold particular views. Your remark “I think that your Irish name explains your post” is clearly intended to be derogatory towards the Irish (who apparently in your mind are marxist-leninists to a man). It should be perfectly possible to argue for – or against – the notion of constitutional monarchy without resorting to racial slurs.

          6. Really? I only ever see the queen rubber stamp the demands of the crooks. But if you believe it’s a safeguard – hey, knock yourself out.

      2. Infinitely? And how much corruption has QE2 ever prevented?

        You imply that the only alternative to a constitutional monarchy is a regime with a president as head of state. One can think of other systems, e.g. democratic with a titular head of state and a powerful (non-elected) judiciary or other well-designed safeguard against corruption.

        1. To Shuggy and Jesper:
          Shuggy first: Instead of just zeroing in on the current monarch, can you tell me what instances of corruption of which you have become aware during my lifetime – 85 years – or even before, say 1837 – the accession of Victoria.The rest of your post is so confused and confusing that I wouldn’t know where or how to start answering
          it.
          Jesper next:A constitutional monarch is an arbiter,a referee if you like, who can only exercise his powers during a constitutional crisis. It is only then that he/she can rule on options presented to him by the head of government ie: the prime minister.In the unlikely event that the head of government does not like the monarch’s decision, then we really have a constitutional crisis in which the monarch, or the h.o.g. becomes an EX.This may happen in less civilised jurisdictions than Britain.

          1. “A constitutional monarch is an arbiter,a referee if you like, who can only exercise his powers during a constitutional crisis.”

            Whether or not you see this as a safeguard against corruption seems to be a matter of opinion.

            Corruption exists regardless of the governing model and it is a complex issue with several causes.

          2. Jesper: It most definitely is NOT a matter of opinion. Rather, it is a matter legal precedent and established constitutional law. Sorry – but those are the incontrovertible facts – not my or anyone else’s opinion.

          3. My point is that the monarchy is not a safeguard against corruption, not whether they hold legitimate legal power or not.

            Corruption is a global problem, not isolated to certain countries because of their governing model.

          4. You are talking about a ‘referee’ whose only qualification is his parents. And I can’t remember Britain ‘getting rid of’ a monarch since they lopped off Charley 1’s head. There is also the little difficulty of how humans react to having power. Whether an individual or a group. if they do not face being replaced power always corrupts.

          8. King James II was got rid off (although it is somewhat controversial as to whether his replacement was invited in or whether it was really the last successful invasion).
            Then Edward VIII was also shown the door.

          9. True, but ‘officially’ Jimmy 2 ‘abdicated’ when he ran for his life, and Eddie 8 quit, so he doesn’t count.

          11. Nick Evans: Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson Mountbatten-Windsor (?) just happened to be an American. E8 couldn’t be King (and Defender of the Faith, titular head of the Church of England, which would not remarry divorcees) and marry a double divorcee, nor make her Queen.

            And it’s hard to say whether he jumped or was pushed: the Establishment would have looked the other way if he’d kept her as his mistress and married a virginal English gel and slept with her only enough to produce an heir.

          12. I don’t want to appear to be going after you, John, but this is really unconscionable.

            The monarch, whoever holds the post as Defender of the Faith, is by definition corrupt, by definition the upholder of (Christian) religious tenets, by definition the enemy of science, by definition the foe of knowledge, by definition the King of the caste who lord it, state-sponsored, over their God-fearing sheep, by definition the bulwark of the most backward, the most superstitious, the least (but last) enlightened.

          13. Though, to be fair, they are also by definition the Patron of one of the world’s oldest and most distinguished bodies for the development and promotion of science and knowledge, the Royal Society.

          15. “This may happen in less civilised jurisdictions than Britain.”

            May I know what some of these “less civilised” jurisdictions might be? (Or perhaps, your definition of a “civilised” person just happens to be “someone who fawns at the feet of the current monarch”?)

          16. I think most countries in the world are less civilized than Britain. The Islamic countries of the middle east come to mind as particularly uncivilized.

      3. Bonnie Prince Charlie (presumably the next once and future King) has apparently been lobbying Jeremy Hunt about the controversial alternative treatment of homeopathy (much to the annoyance of Labor MPs). So is this corruption, or do you choose to label it something else (perhaps just plain stupidity)?

        Like the poor, corruption will always be with us, no matter what the political system.

        1. I wouldn’t describe it as corruption in any sense unless one could prove that the Brit.Homeopathic Association had suborned BPC to act on its behalf. Very unlikely,because I’m
          quite certain that the bank balance of BPC is many millions of times that of the BHA. It is more moronic idiocy than stupidity, but is clearly not corruption

        2. I think this is just plain stupidity.

          Charles is caught up in woo and wishful thinking, if the monarchy had any real power I’d dread him acceding to the throne.

          But in answer to the original question. I don’t much care – shock, horror – pregnant woman has baby. It’s not a special baby, just a privileged one. The monarchy work pretty hard, but they get handsomely rewarded for it. There are many thousands of people who work far harder and get paid far less.

      4. I care because a constitutional monarch is infinitely preferential to a republican system – it is an established safeguard against the evils of corruption which plagues so many regimes with presidents as heads of state.

        Since the role of the British monarchy is now almost entirely ceremonial, with no meaningful political power, your reason for caring doesn’t make much sense, even assuming your factual claim (“established safeguard against the evils of corruption”) is true, which I very strongly doubt.

        1. Gary W:The mere fact that a British monarch has no political power is precisely what makes it so attractive, politically.I live in Canada where, since the present conservative govt. got
          into a majority situation,we have had constitutional problems, hardly crises, but we do have a Governor-General- the monarch’s rep.-and the Prime Minister has been obliged to appear before the GG and present options for the government to carry on. The GG has chosen an option and the government has continued to operate. I really don’t know why so many people have difficulty with the concept of a constitutional monarchy. It seems to me that their reasons for disliking the concept are all about a privileged “upper class” rather than the political stability of the system

          1. So you think the British monarchy provides “an established safeguard against the evils of corruption” even though you concede it has no political power. Still not making sense.

          2. Your claim that Britain’s monarchy offers any sort of protection against corruption or the widespread violation of citizen rights (e.g. to have free speech, assembly etc etc) is totally and utterly ludicrous. The British have essentially no guarantees against violation of all citizens basic rights (as long as it is a Parliamentary majority doing the nasties). The British Constitution is unwritten.. it has no force against major change except “precedent”. Precedent is a poor protector indeed. There is human rights legislation, but it is from the European Union, and adherence in the end, is actually optional. Any surrendering your sovereignty to a central European bureaucracy is a rather high price to pay for these rights. Americans should thank their lucky stars for their superb WRITTEN Constitution, written by an exceptionally talented group of Enlightenment individuals. As for the monarchy, they are good for the tourist trade and not much else.

          4. Yeah well your constitution really works, doesn’t it?

            Given that countless laws have been struck down as violating rights protected by the Constitution, I’d say so, yes. No comparable mechanism for protecting the rights of the people exists in the British system of government. You’re essentially at the mercy of Parliament.

          5. The fact that the US Constitution is written hasn’t done a whole lot for us, especially since the 9/11 attacks.

            We’re now confined (for “security” reasons) to small “free speech zones” miles from political conventions if we wish to speak contrary to the party lines. Reproductive rights are increasingly governed by conservative Christian theology. The government doesn’t even pretend to give lip service to protections against warrantless searches and seizures; just try to travel by air or make a phone call without a government agent knowing everything — and all it takes to lose your home to an armed military-style invasion is an anonymous tip and one of the “officers” “accidentally” dropping a bag of weed from the last bust behind the sofa. The right against self-incrimination is gone, as the courts or customs agents can generally compel you to reveal computer passwords; also consider that two thirds of Americans live in the 100-mile border “buffer zones” over which customs has jurisdiction.

            And that’s all just the tip of the iceberg….

            b&

          6. We’re now confined (for “security” reasons) to small “free speech zones” miles from political conventions if we wish to speak contrary to the party lines. Reproductive rights are increasingly governed by conservative Christian theology. The government doesn’t even pretend to give lip service to protections against warrantless searches and seizures

            All of these claims are utter nonsense.

          7. Just because you see current violations of Constitutional rights doesn’t mean our Constitutional system is no good. Resolving these issues takes time, given that the courts, perhaps even the Supreme Court itself, must put these violations down. But it is surely a better system than having no redress whatsoever to such infringements.

          8. Howard,

            A good set of laws is certainly important, but nations are ultimately made of humans, not laws. An honest people is capable of self-governance in a just manner without explicit laws; a dishonest people will embrace injustice regardless of what laws ostensibly apply.

            For what it’s worth, the Soviet Union had a rather lovely constitution, as well, with lots of liberty and justice for all. They just never took it out of the display case.

            b&

          9. The Human Rights Act isn’t “from” the EU. The Act gives effect to the European Convention on Human Rights, which predates the EU, and was drafted by British lawyers, based on common law civil liberties. Equally, our constitution is written down, just not all in one place.

          10. “Equally, our constitution is written down, just not all in one place.”
            A better way of putting it is that the British Constitution is all over the place…. in acts of Parliament, in any number of ill defined court judgments, in precedence from past history. It is a “dogs dinner” of what applies – of what can and what shouldn’t be done. And it just takes an act of Parliament to make radical changes in these “precedents” if passions and irrationality run high in a majority party. The “sovereignty of Parliament” has in effect no checks or counterbalances, as in the American system’s three branches of government “checks and balances”. Now proponents of unwritten constitutions argue that it provides “flexibility to change with the times”. In effect it also provides “flexibility” to bend to a tyranny. As for the effect of the Human Rights Act it gives a European authority, the European Court of Human Rights precedence over British legal judgment. I live in England – don’t try to tell me that the British are happy with this state of affairs.

      5. Not when they are only around for 4 to 8 years. And when congress also is up for election frequently. If the voters fail to be rid of the bad ones, the fault lays with the people, not with the system.

        1. lisa: how many presidents of how many republics have arbitrarily extended their terms in office until, literally, their dying day?

          2. In the United States? None. Staging a military coup, setting up a dictatorship and calling yourself the ‘President’ of a ‘republic’ is not the same thing.

      6. Are you really talking about the differences between a presidential system and a constitutional monarchy or are you really talking about the differences between a presidential system and a cabinet system (which I like to think of as a parliamentary system)? The cabinet system works just like a constitutional monarchy but the monarchy is not head of state (the PM is instead).

        1. Sorry Diana – the prime minister is not the head of state – he is the head of government -I think you are Canadian, as am I. If Harper were the head of state, IMHO Canada would be……?
          Unthinkable. Like it or not QE2 is our HOS and her rep is the GG.

          1. Yes, I know the Prime Minister is NOT head of state in Canada because we are under a constitutional monarchy. My point is you can still have a cabinet system or parliamentary system WITHOUT a constitutional monarchy. It functions exactly the same except the Prime Minister is the head of state instead of the monarch. My point was to clarify – what was the real comparison – the system or the monarch because those are two slightly different arguments.

            But since you asked, yes, I would prefer that the Canadian Prime Minister was head of state as the leader of our elected party. A foreign monarch whose representative costs the tax payers lots of money and whose purpose is largely ceremonial with the distasteful role of making sure the government is functional just doesn’t seem entirely democratic.

            I think Canada is old enough to be able to look after itself without the queen watching over us to make sure we can do okay. It is my opinion that the electorate should be the ultimate decider. The only thing I’ve seen the Governor General do where a real decision was needed, was to allow the PM to prorogue parliament and she basically just did what the PM wanted. It seems like a wasteful, archaic position.

          2. Several years back, the GG of Australia dissolved parliament quite against the wishes of the elected polititicians, as I recall. Did it also without consulting the Queen (of Australia) as I recall.

            And, just a USaian here, but hasn’t Canada been able to govern itself since about 1867, even though it incurs some overhead for a monarch who lives across the pond. — pH

          3. Indeed hence the need for a GG is archaic, costly and wasteful. Not to mention, I’m sure it doesn’t help English-French relations either and although this may be an unpopular opinion with some, I have more in common with French Canadians than with an English monarch so I’d prefer they were happier in Canada.

      7. Yeah, the constitutional monarchies of Japan, Spain and Belgium are far less corrupt than the republics Germany, Finland, Iceland, Singapore and Switzerland. That’s a well established fact:

        http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results

        Oops.
        And of course QE2 has been very active fighting corruption in Canada, Australia and New-Zealand – without her they would have dropped to the level of say Zimbabwe within a year at most.

        1. Facts: the British hereditary Monarchy has a lot of political power. It rubber-stamps in normal times who forms the government; it can step in and arbitrarily decide, in times of political deadlock or undefined crisis, who can form a government – this party, that party, my mate.

          And that is only what it can do within the UK; heaven knows what it does in the Commonwealth.

          Pace other commenters who appear to be perfectly happy to leave their political future in the hands of a bunch of inbred tax-dodging criminals, I much prefer to eschew their Uriah Heep deferential cringe; they have their own oleaginous and self-serving agenda.

          1. The power to select parties is so, so. I think they know if they made to obvious a play they would be shown the door.
            More concerning are the vetos the heir and the monarch have via the duchies of cornwall and Lancaster.
            Recently the Guardian have been having some fun trying to get some letters from charlie to various ministers published.
            Grieve, the attorney general, refused on the grounds of “This risk will arise if, through these letters, the Prince of Wales was viewed by others as disagreeing with government policy. Any such perception would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne he cannot easily recover it when he is king,”

          2. OK, “The power to select parties is so-so”, Kevin. No, it’s not.

            What if the King had chosen, in 1940, to choose the crypto-appeaser Lord Halifax over Winston Churchill? Would that have been so-so? Of course it wouldn’t. It doesn’t matter, in this context, whether you agree with Churchill or Halifax.

            The point is that the unelected descendant of 19th century cousin-fucking was The Man to decide whether Hitler was a Good thing or a Bad Thing. That ain’t my idea of rational politics; nor yours, of course.

          3. Facts: the British hereditary Monarchy has a lot of political power. It rubber-stamps in normal times who forms the government; it can step in and arbitrarily decide, in times of political deadlock or undefined crisis, who can form a government – this party, that party, my mate.

            Baloney. In a deadlock or crisis, any action by the monarch would just be a rubber stamp for the wishes of parliament or the general public. If the Queen actually tried to take any significant independent political action she’d have her head handed to her.

          4. It doesn’t matter what you or I think, Gary W; that’s the constitutional position. See my response to Kevin for a concrete example.

          5. There is no “constitutional position.” Britain doesn’t have a written constitution. They make it up as they go along. That’s how the powers of the monarchy were gradually reduced to nothing.

            As for your example, it’s 73 years old and it doesn’t support your claim anyway. The king simply rubber-stamped the decision of political leaders. The idea that Britons today would simply let the Queen choose the new Prime Minister if David Cameron resigned or was ousted is ludicrous.

          6. Weird; arguing against something I didn’t say. It is a fact that the monarch formally appoints the leader of the Government. If you’re alleging that the government is appointed by a politically-disinterested office, then why could it not be done by, say, the Speaker?

            Can you imagine a set of circumstances in which the monarch can be used to legitimize, say, a Fascist takeover, suspension of the rule of law, hell, anything dear to the heart of the editor of the Daily Mail?

            I can and very easily; what is the power there for, if not as a back-stop in exceptional circumstances? And all of them defined as intolerable by the right wing.

            If you’re happy for a cornerstone of the British Constitution – and you know as well as I do that the cultural conversation always abbreviates what we’re talking about as the British Constitution – to be gifted to the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas and the offspring of whichever bit of well-bred totty their noblesse oblige eyes happen pick from the harem, well then, you’re that sort of person.

          7. Gary, it’s a myth that Britain doesn’t have a written constitution. There is no single document where all the laws that determine how the country is governed are gathered together, but the laws are written down, just not in one place.

          8. It is a fact that the monarch formally appoints the leader of the Government.

            Meaning that political leaders tell the monarch who to appoint and the monarch does what he/she is told. As I said, the role is almost entirely ceremonial.

            If you’re alleging that the government is appointed by a politically-disinterested office, then why could it not be done by, say, the Speaker?

            To maintain the appearance of the nostalgic fiction that the monarch still rules the country in some meaningful sense. I lived in Britain for several years. There are many things about it I like a great deal. But it’s also a very backward-looking country, obsessed with its history and past glories.

            Can you imagine a set of circumstances in which the monarch can be used to legitimize, say, a Fascist takeover, suspension of the rule of law

            No.

          9. Jeremy Pereira,

            Acts of Parliament are not a constitution. They’re just statutes, equivalent to acts of Congress in the U.S. political system. Britain has no written equivalent to the U.S. Constitution.

  2. Still not sure I get the American fascination with British royalty. Didn’t we fight a particularly bloody war almost a quarter millennium ago so we wouldn’t be subjected to those people?

    b&

    1. Precisely. While I can understand that it’s difficult to let go of a cultural tradition as time-“honored” as the monarchy, there definitely comes a point when onlookers in other (and younger, admittedly) nations have to screw up their faces and ask, “Really? Still?”

      (For the record, although my ancestry is 100% Welsh/Scottish/English afaik, my people all came over the “pond” to the U.S. in the mid-late 1800s, so if anyone in my family fought in the Revolutionary War, it was on the “wrong” side, haha).

    2. We also fought a war against Japan and Germany not so long ago so as to not be oppressed by them. And now we’re friends.

      I’m happy for them, as I would be for any couple with a new baby they wanted. I don’t especially like or dislike the royals but I like the system, which beats American republicanism hands down.

    3. I think the American Fascination of our Royal Family comes from thinking of them like a reality TV show. A kind of surreal fantasy show with princesses, funny hats, expensive jewellery and old buildings. They are the ultimate celebrities. Not the talented and respected, actor, artist or scientist type celebrity, but the Paris Hilton type celebrity. I’m not even sure I’m doing a metaphor.

      1. I dunno, the whole State of the Union Address is full of a lot of pomp. I find it weird that the President shakes hands like that and the Congress applauds at certain points in the speech.

        But I still think it’s better than a Commonwealth nation’s Throne Speech – at least Canada’s. To me, it’s a bizarre thing to watch. Usually they don’t broadcast them but the one I saw where the Governor General sat it a fancy looking throne chair (kinda like the chair for seeing Santa) and the Prime Minister sat in some crappy looking fold out chair was just weird and funny.

        Rick Mercer’s Rant is spot on and hilarious!

    4. It is about celebrity – these people are famous for nothing just like most vacuous TV & film stars. Ability or skill or talent developed would be my mark of worth, rather than birth, though I would still say a monarchy was a good thing in the mediaeval epoch.

  3. Nope. Roll on the republic (fat chance), though when the kids grandad gets on the throne we have to hope he will continue putting his foot in it and will spark a crisis. I wont be holding my breath.

    2. I think that Prince Charley is what’s keeping mum alive. She will hold off death with a claymore until she doesn’t have to worry about him becoming king, or even worse, Camilla taking her spot.

  4. Ugghhh, I can’t express how irksome the media has become with the way the fawn over royals and the British monarchy in general. Having grown up in a country that was a British colony until fairly recently, I have absolutely nothing nice to say about the British crown, an institution that represents some of the nastier parts of British imperialism.

  8. Well, we only have a few short years left to say that the Brits are being topped by a queen. :p
    Other than that, big whoop.

    3. Is this really an objection to the OP? When a blogger* decides to post on their interests, it can be just as informative to know what they don’t find interesting as what they do.

      *Disallowing the term “blogger” is too much of a handicap for me to write around just this minute. And I can’t wait for a cup of coffee to brew to rectify the situation.

      1. Besides, I knew the presidential system debate was going to start up because of it. 🙂

    4. Why post? Because even if you don’t care about it, you have had zero chance to not be inundated with by-the-minute updates on the situation.

      And while some people are acting as though a cure for cancer had been discovered; some of us do not think that a super-privileged woman having a baby is something that deserves breaking news coverage and adulation, and feel that at very least we have the right to express that opinion.

  11. Wonder how long I can go without seeing an image of the new arrival?

    If I try really hard it might be as much as 72 hours.

    One day I’m feeling a bit of pride in being part of a nation that loves animals. Next I’m ashamed of the forelock tugging obeisance of it all.

    Nice job Britain.

  14. How many infants will die around the world today from starvation, thirst, or violence? I’m glad their baby is healthy but he is not more important than any of these other babies that will die quietly and unknown. It’s barbaric to heap this much attention on a stranger’s offspring. I just don’t get it.

  15. I live in England and every news station all day has not shut up about it, I’m guessing it is the same in America considering the fascination the news seem to have about the royal family. You would think there would be some actual news today, not just a story about a woman in labour.

  17. The BBC and the british press obsession is sort of understandable, it’s our constitution and the Windsors remain popular for nostalgic reasons. What I don’t get is the masses of foreign media outside the hospital.

    Strange.

  19. I think this quote says it best:

    “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

    – Denis Diderot

    2. I’m all for equality and freedom, but that does seem a trifle harsh, not to mention really messy.

  21. I care because he will eventually be King of my country (Canada).

    Among the long list of things I don’t care about is Barack Obama or another American movie star with a drug problem. Everybody will have forgotten about them in a few years.

    2. Well, he’ll be head of state of our country and then we’ll have to change all the money! Jeez just put pictures of Prime Ministers on it and be done with it – we could have a ouija board with strange little transparent ghosts for William Lyon MacKenizie King.

      I really hope Canada grows & leaves the club that is the Commonwealth maybe make some constitutional changes at the same time!

      So, no I don’t care. I actually find it a big anachronism and I’m glad Pierre Trudeau pirouette behind the Queen’s back!

      1. Outside the UK the monarch is head of state in name only. The effective head of state, and the one that matters should there be a constitutional crisis (as in Australia when Whitlam got booted out) is the Governor-General who is appointed on the advice of the sovereign’s ministers (ie in practice usually the PM of the appropriate former colony) for a limited term. For the legally pedantic the Queen of the UK is in law a different person than the Queen of Canada, Australia etc.

  22. This is supposed to be a science nottablog. So, using what you know about his family, what is the probability he will be mostly bald by age 40?

  24. I’m a little disappointed it wasn’t a girl, just so the new non-sexist rules on succession would apply. Other than that, meh. Assuming the monarchy survives long enough for the kid to get the top job, I certainly won’t be around to see it. Hell, given known family longevity, kid’s granddad will probably outlive me, despite being nine years my senior.

    I loathe the BBC headline from this morning: “The World Waits…”. No, it didn’t, at least not the sensible part of it.

    1. Look on the bright side. There is still time for him to challenge LGBT attitudes.

      1. Good for them, but I don’t live under that monarchy (even if the recently-retired holder of that office lived in exile in Ottawa during WWII, where she was known at school as “Trixie Orange”). I’m just pleased that the monarchy I do live under, which also seems to be the most overblown and stodgy of the surviving European monarchies, has decided to join the modern world to this extent.

  25. Celebrate the wondrous news with Percy Bysshe Shelley. Huzzah!

    An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying king,–
    Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow
    Through public scorn, mud from a muddy spring,–
    Rulers who neither see, nor feel, nor know,
    But leech-like to their fainting country cling,
    Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow,–
    A people starved and stabbed in the untilled field,–
    An army which liberticide and prey
    Makes as a two-edged sword to all who wield,–
    Golden and sanguine laws which tempt and slay;
    Religion Christless, Godless, a book sealed,–
    A Senate—Time’s worst statute unrepealed,–
    Are graves from which a glorious Phantom may
    Burst to illumine our tempestuous day.

    1. One of my favorite poems. I guess George III and his sons taught GB a thing or two about giving royal families actual power.

      What the Brits really need is another War of the Roses. Back then, royalty was at least interesting. Now, not so much.

      I blame the Stuarts.

  26. This is the third time I’ve seen people mention not caring about the royal baby. I have not seen one declaration of someone caring about it, or a neutral news report on the subject.

    Is this taking over the regular media or something? Because I’m seeing more people who just want people to shut up about the matter than I am the people they’re telling to shut up.

    1. sadly way to much in the UK.
      At least the Guardian has a little button to hide it, shame they dont extend it to Andrew Browns writings.

  27. I like Kate and William,but can’t stop thinking about the death of Lady Diana.By the blasted papararazzi who will hound that poor child. I’m the grand mother of a boy and am insane about the little guy. Best to them and baby.

  28. My wife has CNN on most of the day, and I must admit this news is superior to “Stand your ground” in Florida. 🙂

      1. Only if I bothered to show up. On the other hand, the Nobel Prize for Indifference comes with triple prize money ($3 , so a bit of incentive there. (I figure if I can invent a Nobel Prize, I can invent the award money as well.)

    1. As a member of a former colony who is a member of the Commonwealth I feel the same.

      1. As a member of a different former colony I also agree. We have been trying to get a republic up but can’t agree on the details.

  32. I don’t care about it.

    But nevertheless I’m going to pay some attention to it. Otherwise I’m going to be just an out-of-touch old fogey. There’s a long list of things that I have to pay attention to even though I don’t care about them. The list starts with Justin Bieber — and now Prince Whatsit — and goes downhill from there.

    1. I don’t approve. The objective is to be an out-of-touch old fogey as young as possible. It’s your duty to be laughed at [or ignored] by the young & the hipster clones. If you please yourself one of two things will happen if you live long enough:-

      Either 3-button cardigans & highly polished brogues will return & you’ll be cutting edge. Or you’ll have positioned yourself to be a loony old geezer able to behave exactly as you please, with everyone shaking their heads dolefully as they studiously avoid you. Either way you will be contented & remembered when you’re gone.

      1. Yes. Take a page out of my dad’s book. About 10 years ago, my mom called me at work laughing so hard she could barely speak. When she finally got out what it was she wanted to tell me, she said my dad had gone out with a boot on one foot & a shoe on the other and (this was the best part) defended some kids against some grumpy golfers and wondered why the kids looked at him kind of funny.

        1. Precisely! And great service in posh restaurants. The eagle eyes of the maĂźtre d’ & his [why nearly always a he?] serf minions scan ones corner so frequently that a twitch of the finger on the tablecloth brings ’em hovering ~ to *help* you through the courses & wine refills & out the door as quickly as possible. Acting obliviously to the fuss caused by not quite fitting in is a joy ~ sticking one up the stuffed shirts so to speak.

      2. I’m hoping for choice ‘B’; I’ve already found my “Yes, I’m the crazy aunt they’ve all been warning you about” tee shirt.

        1. The crazy aunt who says what she thinks. It’s such a shame we are allowed to do this for 4 years & then we have to wait another 70 years before we can get away with it again 🙂

    2. It’s even better for fogey ladies. They can look forward to purple hair & shopping in their slippers. [although these options are open to old geezers too]

      1. Given the trend of the young to shop in thir pyjamas that’ less of a big deal now.

  33. Well, he’s healthy. I’m always pleased when a baby is born healthy (any baby, except mosquitoes and cockroaches.) But as far as the British monarchy goes, well, I’m an American girl; we are all equal, etc, and I find rule by hereditary monarch (even when it is ‘shared’ or eclipsed by an elected parliament) antiquated and ridiculous in this day and age. But apparently it’s good for business, mostly of the tourist type I’d guess. But I am not toasting the little one with a “hip, hip, hurray.”

  34. Beware the in-laws… SLATE REPRINT of an article by the Hitch. The Slate editorial reads:- “Back in 2011, Christopher Hitchens tried to warn Kate Middleton away from the dreary dutifulness of life in the royal family. But now not only are they married, Kate and Prince William have a son. Mistake?”

    “…The usually contemptuous words fairy tale were certainly coldly accurate about the romance quotient of the last two major royal couplings, which brought the vapid disco-princesses Diana and Sarah (I decline to call her “Fergie”) within range of demolishing the entire mystique. […]

    Princess Margaret later married and divorced a man she did not love and then had years to waste as the model of the bone-idle, cigarette-holdered, gin-sipping socialite, surrounded with third-rate gossips and charmers and as unhappy as the day was long. (She also produced some extra royal children, for whom something to do had to be found.) Prince Charles, subjected to a regime of fierce paternal harangues and penitential cold-shower boarding schools, withdrew into himself, was eventually talked into a calamitous marriage with someone he didn’t love or respect, and is now the morose, balding, New Age crank and licensed busybody that we flinch from today. […]

    I laughed so loud when the Old Guard began snickering about the pedigree of young Ms. Middleton. Her parents, it appeared, were not quite out of the top drawer. The mother had been an air hostess or something with an unfashionable airline, and the family had been overheard using lethally wrong expressions, such as serviette for napkin, settee for sofa, and—I can barely bring myself to type the shameful letters—toilet for lavatory. Ah, so that’s what constitutes vulgarity! People who would never dare risk a public criticism of the royal family, even in its daytime-soap incarnation, prefer to take a surreptitious revenge on a young woman of modest background. For shame…”

    1. SLATE REPRINT of an article by the Hitch

      Excellent read, thanks for the link.

  35. The Royal Family seems to have a cult following, which is all that is left of the British Empire. I wonder how much of this is media fueled.

  36. Since long I’ve wondered why the UK and The Netherlands need a head of state at all. In both countries the prime minister is the most powerful politician. The few tasks done these days by the monarchs easily can be transferred to the chair(wo)men of the House of Lords and the Council of State respectively.
    I realize it won’t happen during my lifetime as Oranje-Nassay is insanely popular in The Netherlands as well. I mean, every civilized country celebrates Labour Day – except we. Because of f****g Queen’s Day.

    Back to the Stadholderless Period I say; The Netherlands didn’t fare too badly. Btw the Executive Authority of the Batavian Republic also did without a head of state.

  38. The instrument has yet to be invented that can measure my indifference to this story.

  39. That’s fair. You’re American. I don’t see why you have to care that a future King of England is born.

  40. ‘once and future king’ really should only be applied to Arthur Pendragon – once the King, and when he returns to save Albion he will be King again (trumpets, bow down etc etc). As for this new sprog, while I am sure he will be very happy and want for nothing I sincerely hope he will never be king.

  41. A young woman at work walked in and announced that it was a boy as though this was important news, I laughed like a drain. Apparently all New Zealanders are rabid royalists, I had no idea! I thought they were all peacenik socialists!

    1. That was the 1980s. Now we are neo- liberal fawning royalists. What other country in its right mind would reinstate knighthoods having got rid of them.

      3. Right mind? Why? Knighthoods make perfect sense. You just have to view them as the socially acceptable political bribes that they are.

        I bet politicians in other countries wish they could have similar carrots to motivate people to do what they want.

    2. My New Zealand side of the family are all royslists including my mother. My Canadian father and I disagree with her.

      1. To this kiwi, the only way the royal family makes sense to me is for the tourism it brings in.

        Everything else is pageantry.

        The people I know who dig the royal family don’t dig the royal family for their own sake. They dig the pageantry that surrounds the royals.

        It’s the circus part of the whole bread and circuses thing.

        The royals also nicely distract the populace from actual newsworthy events of political import, which is useful if you’re a politician.

        …

        Man, methinks that watching Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister as a 13-year-old has seriously jaded me in some regards. 😛

  42. I’m a Brit, and I really couldn’t care less. My wife has had two children, and the second birth was a traumatic one, but the press didn’t make a fuss of her. Neither did they fill the papers with words when my dad died in the same year as Diana. I fail to see why an accident of birth makes these people’s lives more worthy of interest.

  43. The Millions ‏@The_Millions

    BREAKING: Royal Baby was actually birthed by J.K. Rowling.

  49. For me royalty is just too sinister to ignore. The royal birth sends out a clear message to every British youngster, “No matter how hard you work, and how much you contribute to society, you will never, never equal that filthy rich family who use a helicopter to go down the road, and to whom the finest wines, fabrics and cars are sent for free. Their wealth is the public’s squalor; their undeserved university education is stolen from another smarter kid; and their casual sneer of superiority places stupidity above intelligence. Each royal darling will surround himself with friends who form a circle and laugh suspiciously enthusiastically at every passing expressed thought. It was all exemplified last week exemplified by Charles’s mignons at the Duchy of Cornwall, looking down their noses at Parliamentary Investigator and intoning, “We are royalty. We are not expected to pay tax on our unearned income. We may buy and sell property without Capital Gains Tax because that it our inherited right”.
    I first saw the nastiness of privilege when I went up to Oxford in the sixties. The students in my group had reserved places owing to their expensive Private School, and most of them were well below average, and yet carried a curious kind of superiority. When I mentioned that I had worked in a factory, one snorted with derision, “No, you did not! Factories were in the nineteenth century!” One told me firmly that astrology was the major science taught in universities, because he had read a book on astrology that mentioned Duke. They were all quite religious, with a triumphant mockery of anything scientific. It being the year of space exploration I asked how they would begin about making a rocket ship. They responded that they would look in the classics ; Greek and Roman authors (upon their understanding that nothing new had been discovered since those times!) You cannot beat the rich and thick. They have the power and influence to ram home stupidity above all the science in the world. I think and hope that Private Schools no longer reserve places at top universities. Nowadays their teachers attend expensive summer courses run by exam boards in which the exam questions are hinted-at in advance. Money will always trump intelligence. And so I live in the Republic of France, where everyone drives the same kind of car.

    1. Another reason it might be taken seriously is the cheap imitations such as Tonga with its clown of a king and jumped up “Lords”, it would be amusing if it wasn’t the usual front for leeching of the rest of the population and privatising common goods for personal benefit.

  50. I don’t understand the big reaction to the royal baby. After all, we won’t know if he really is the Kwisatz Haderach for at least 15 years after he faces the gom jabbar test.

    1. Ha ha! Good one! In this case I think Jessica, I mean Kate, didn’t have a boy against the wishes of the Bene Gesserits so maybe he won’t get the gom jabbar test.

  51. As there are so many in the US that are fascinated by the royals, would they like to take them off our hands? Please. Pretty please. With a cherry on top!

  52. It’s a miracle! Woman gives birth to a healthy baby boy!

    Christian dictionary: miracle! – something ordinary that has happened countless times before.

Comments are closed.