The Crimes of Monarchy
-
Fra Hughes
- 24 Sep 2022 16:05
- 6 Shares
8 Min Read
With the death of Elizabeth II, now is a good time to reflect on the suitability of the continuation of the role of an unelected King in a modern pseudo-democratic nation.
With the death of Elizabeth II, the longest-serving Monarch in British history who is to be replaced by her erstwhile son Charles, perhaps now is a good time to reflect on the suitability of the continuation of the role of an unelected King in a modern pseudo-democratic nation.
I could begin by listing the sins of British foreign policy under the watch of Elizabeth the second, including a coup in Iran in 1953 when Britain, with the help of the American CIA, instigated a coup, thereby removing the democratically-elected leader of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh and replacing him with the unelected Shah. This eventually led to the cultural revolution in Iran in 1979 when the Shah was deposed by a peoples'-led revolt and Iran was once again governed by the people and not a Monarchical dictatorship.
I could mention the Suez campaign when Britain and others tried to occupy and control the Suez Canal in Egypt only to fail ingloriously and suffer a humiliating defeat.
Or Kenya where the Mau Mau, who revolted against the British military occupation of their country, were brutalized, beaten, castrated, tortured, and murdered, leading to accusations of war crimes and possible criminal proceedings.
All of the above-mentioned crimes were carried out by the British government, the British establishment, and the British army.
They were carried out in the name of the Queen and the Country.
Yet, I would prefer to look at the royal family itself and critique their suitability to govern.
Let's start with Elizabeth Windsor.
Well, that's actually a pseudonym of sorts.
The family name is actually Saxe- Coburg -Gotha, and she is of German descent.
The family changed their name in 1917 during the first World War in order to appease anti-German sentiment.
Other families with German names living in Britain were interned during those very same war years.
Elizabeth married her cousin Phillip of Greece, and they had several children.
She ascended to the throne in 1952 taking the oath to Protect the Protestant Faith.
In that simple act alone, has disenfranchised and thus failed to represent the millions of Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom.
An act of division and separatism, yet she claims to want to unite the country.
The British government, the establishment, and the popular press and mainstream media portrayed Elizabeth as a benign figure, as a mother, and as a granny to the nation. While prime ministers came and went, she was a constant steadying influence for good for over 70 years, as the Royals set the example of what it was to be British.
The British Monarchy is far from being benign.
The modern history of the royals plainly paints a picture of how deeply embedded they are in the imperialist war machinations of their governments and in foreign misadventures in other people's land.
The royals are not a paragon of virtue.
They are parasites of privilege.
They are the very epitome of white supremacy; bringing civilization and Christianity to the colonies, the fuzzy-wuzzy, to people of brown or black skin, and the bog Irish.
The British Monarch is head of the British armed forces.
These are not ceremonial positions as we shall see.
The royals are deeply embedded in the British military-industrial complex.
Firstly, we have the former Prince Charles as the commander in chief of the British Parachute regiment.
The Parachute regiment was renowned in the North of Ireland for its brutality toward the indigenous Irish Catholic population.
So much so that they murdered 11 unarmed civilians in what became known as the Ballymurphy Massacre in Belfast between August 9-11, 1971, with Britain's enforcement of mass arrests as it implemented internment without trial upon the nationalist Irish population.
This was followed by another Massacre in Derry on January 30, 1972, when the very same regiment murdered 13 unarmed civil rights protesters, injuring many more in what the world now knows as 'Bloody Sunday'.
The soldier in charge that day, Col. Mike Jackson, claimed his victims were gunmen and bombers, and that lie continued to be repeated until June 15, 2010, when David Cameron, the then-British Prime Minister, gave a public retraction and a public apology to the families of the dead and injured and exonerated those that were murdered that day as being totally innocent.
The inquest into the Ballymurphy Massacre of 1971 is still ongoing 52 years later.
Col. Mike Jackson was given a medal and later appointed General Officer Commanding all British land forces.
Prince Andrew fought against the Argentine conscripts during Margaret Thatcher’s War on the Malvinas in 1982.
Prince Harry fought against the Taliban in the war on Afghanistan.
The Royal family is deeply embedded in and indeed plays a significant role in persuading the British public of the British government's right to use war and violence in order to gain political influence and political dominance over other nations and peoples.
Prince Andrew was once described as the unofficial Ambassador for the British Arms industry as he toured the world in his official capacity as a royal, paid for by the British Public, while presumably earning commission for selling arms, missiles, and aircraft to despots, dictators, and rogue Monarchs all around the globe.
Now let's look at their suitability to govern as role models and leaders.
While Elizabeth married her cousin, Charles married Diana Spencer.
Shortly after the marriage, he became an adulterer, having a lifelong affair with Camilla Parker Bowles.
He later married her after the death of Diana.
Diana herself was at the time in a relationship with Dodi Fayed. It is rumored she may have been pregnant with his child, and accusations persist that they were murdered in that car accident in the tunnel in Paris to prevent a colored baby from embarrassing the royal family.
As Charles becomes 'King', there is a picture circulating on social media that shows the former Prince Charles in the company of James (Jimmy) Saville and Thomas Hamilton on a day out shooting grouse.
Jimmy Saville was a well-known children's entertainer with the British Broadcasting Corporation.
There were persistent accusations and rumors of pedophilia cited against him.
Investigations proved inconclusive, yet it was widely accepted after his death that he was indeed a prolific sexual predator and pedophile.
The second man pictured in the photograph is Thomas Hamilton infamously known as the 'Dunblane Shooter'.
The disgraced former Scout Master, with an unhealthy interest in young boys according to many newspaper reports at the time, entered a school in Dunblane with four handguns and 700 bullets. Within 4 minutes, he murdered 16 children and their teacher, injuring 32 more before committing suicide. He fired a total of 106 bullets. I wonder what he didn't want those children to disclose.
This is the company kept by the man who would become King?
Prince Andrew, who might simply now be referred to as Andrew, was stripped of his military and ceremonial duties after his mother had to pay 12 million pounds to prevent Andrew from facing possible prosecution in America over accusations of having had inappropriate sexual relations with a young underage girl.
Lord Mountbatten, Charles' uncle, was another royal accused of pedophilia, and his name was linked to a pedophile ring that frequented the 'Kincora Boys Home' in Belfast.
Andrew was a close friend and confidant of both Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein both of whom were regular visitors to the Royal residences.
So we have 'King Charles' the alleged adulterer.
Andrew the disgraced and accused sexual predator.
They associate with pedophiles and murderers and bleed the public purse dry.
They endorse British governmental imperialist wars and actually play an active role in the subjugation and oppression of other people in other sovereign nations.
These unelected, unmandated, unscrupulous unspeakable relics of feudal medieval times have no part to play in a modern vibrant thriving democracy.
But then Britain is none of those.
Modern Britain is a pseudo-democracy because it is in fact a duopoly led by a monarchy.
The two main parties alternate in power, meaning the people have no real choice when it comes to electing their government.
The role of the Monarchy is to pacify the population; to distract them with pomp and ceremony and patriotic nationalism;
to maintain the established order and to continue the traditional feudal system disguised as a modern democracy.
The Monarchy is not fit for purpose.
The Royals are not fit to lead it.
We, the people, should not have to fund it.
End British Imperialism.
End the British Monarchy.
End the duopoly of power.
Onward to the Republic.
