{"id":22466,"date":"2022-10-28T13:49:28","date_gmt":"2022-10-28T13:49:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/?p=22466"},"modified":"2022-10-28T14:05:46","modified_gmt":"2022-10-28T14:05:46","slug":"the-british-monarchy-a-glorious-feudal-class-in-21st-century-trappings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/2022\/10\/28\/the-british-monarchy-a-glorious-feudal-class-in-21st-century-trappings\/","title":{"rendered":"The British monarchy: a “glorious” feudal class in 21st century trappings"},"content":{"rendered":"

The EL&SD<\/em> Editorial Board only received this article sometime after Elizabrit’s death and Charlie’s royal proclamation. We have already \u00a0posted several articles addressing these events. However we think this article contains valuable extra information highlighting the role of the British monarchy in defending ruling class interests and the particular form the UK state takes to do this. This artice was first published by the French based Trotskyist Communist Union<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE BRITISH MONARCHY: A “GLORIOUS” FEUDAL CLASS IN 21st CENTURY CLOTHING<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The queen\u2019s funeral on 19th September was the biggest death-festival the world has ever seen.\u00a0 And the most costly, although the estimate, according to the website Full Fact, is anything from \u00a38m to… \u00a36bn (!) – since at their time of writing, apparently the police hadn\u2019t yet handed in their overtime bill!<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 There was no way to ignore it.\u00a0 The whole British population was placed into an obligatory 10-day period of mourning before the burial, during which posters and billboards appeared in all public places commemorating the queen\u2019s \u201creign\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 People – they were mainly tourists, retired royalists, and off-duty and ex-military personnel – were induced to spend up to 42 hours waiting in a queue, through the night, to file past her lead-lined casket in Westminster Hall.\u00a0 And the BBC devoted itself to wall-to-wall, 24-hour coverage for which travesty it has subsequently very warmly congratulated itself!\u00a0 World news hardly covered; devastating floods in Pakistan got barely a mention and even unprecedented communal rioting in the city of Leicester was ignored.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 This grandiose, over-the-top and drawnout pageant involved elaborate choreography, thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen\/women and even the Canadian Mounted Police, as representatives of \u201cher\u201d Commonwealth of 54 states.\u00a0 The first official state funeral since Winston Churchill\u2019s in 1965, it had been 60 years in the planning – and as explained by the media, it was the queen herself who had (ghoulishly!) decided on the details.\u00a0 So her final \u201cact of service\u201d was the imposition of this maudlin extravaganza on everyone, like it or not.<\/p>\n

Respectful union bureaucrats<\/strong><\/p>\n

For postal and railway workers, the impact of this very long-anticipated death was profound in a completely different way: their ongoing strike action was immediately suspended by union leaders.\u00a0 These bureaucrats and all the other so-called \u201clabour\u201d figures, right across the board, revealed themselves as apologists, if not outright admirers, of the erstwhile monarch, using the excuse that this was out of respect for \u201cthe woman she was<\/em>\u201d or \u201cher 70 years of devotion to service<\/em>\u201d!\u00a0 As if she ever served anything other than the British ruling capitalist class and their counterparts around the world!\u00a0 But never mind, the rest of the population – that is the \u201clower\u201d classes – were to be treated like fools \u2013 and what\u2019s more, expected to believe in the fictitious political neutrality of the head of this imperial capitalist, class state!\u00a0 The official narrative being that she was \u201cthe queen of all the people<\/em>\u201d, and that the whole country was thus \u201cunited in grief<\/em>\u201d!\u00a0 And not only the country, but the peoples of the \u201cCommonwealth nations\u201d as well.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 All that said, however, the theatrical display around the royal family during the 10 days of in-your-face media reporting could leave nobody in any doubt that theirs was and is a totally different world, which has absolutely nothing to do with the likes of \u201cthe rest of us\u201d!\u00a0 In 1844 Frederick Engels wrote of the monarch: \u201cnowhere is a nonruling personage more revered than in England<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 Today he would not have written this.\u00a0 He would have looked behind the media gloss and seen that the majority of ordinary working people felt not a shred of reverence.<\/p>\n

Feudal trappings soaked in blood<\/strong><\/p>\n

The multiple ceremonies accompanying this death festival did allow Britain\u2019s constitutional monarchy to be seen in all its feudal \u201cglory\u201d.\u00a0 So that anyone who might have thought that the queen was a mere figurehead and that her role as head of state, church and army was merely symbolic, would have had an all-encompassing demonstration of her real purpose.\u00a0 How the monarchy provides the state with a solid buttress, protecting the British capitalist class and its \u201cmother of all parliaments<\/em>\u201d from social shocks – so even if its cost is exorbitant, it is worth its weight in gold\u2026 literally.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 The story which is told for popular consumption is that today\u2019s royal family represents a kind of continuum of royalty at the top of the state, ever since the Battle of Hastings in 1066!\u00a0 Even the French origins of the victors in this battle are swept under the carpet; this is known as the \u201cNorman\u201d conquest!<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 But there is no real continuum.\u00a0 The fact that Britain was a republic for 11 years from 1649 to 1660 is practically unknown, certainly not taught in most British schools and definitely uncelebrated.\u00a0 Yet this republic was the very first \u201cCommonwealth\u201d, and the origin of this word.\u00a0 Under Cromwell and his revolutionary \u201cLeveller\u201d New Model Army whose officers were all elected by the ranks, a united \u201cCommonwealth of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland<\/em>\u201d\u2026\u00a0 not a united \u201cKingdom\u201d (!), was established – after the head of Charles I was chopped off.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 This was the first secular bourgeois republic in the world.\u00a0 It placed the wealthy mercantile capitalist class into power, abolished the House of Lords and Bishops, granted freedom of religion inviting exiled Jews, who had been hounded out of the country, to return.\u00a0 It laid the basis of Britain\u2019s conquest of the seas – and its empire, (so celebrated by today\u2019s \u201cBritannia Unchained<\/em>\u201d Brexiteer political bosses) – by passing the Navigation Acts.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 History classes in this country, to this day, still explain the English revolution of the 1640s, as a religious civil war.\u00a0 The word \u201crevolution\u201d is never used.\u00a0 Yet what the \u201cbad\u201d Roundheads in Oliver Cromwell\u2019s democratic New Model Army achieved, was the overthrow of the monarchy and the church.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 However they left the aristocracy intact and thus free to plot a return of the monarchy, unlike the French revolution 150 years later, which guillotined the whole lot of them, ensuring they were gone for good!\u00a0 Of course that\u2019s only part of the story.\u00a0 What establishment historians call the revolution was after the restoration of the monarchy – the so-called \u201cglorious\u201d revolution of 1688 – when the pomp and circumstance around monarchy was restored.\u00a0 But thanks to the genuinely revolutionary period under Cromwell, the parliamentarians had felt their power and were not going to give it up; they ensured it remained in their hands and that the kings and queens who followed remained subservient.\u00a0 Their compromise, however, placed the aristocracy and bishops back in their House of Lords and revived religious sectarianism.\u00a0 After several hiccoughs, an Anglican \u201cProtestant\u201d state was born.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Once the post-revolutionary reaction had settled in, the new landowners, together with a caste of merchants and lawyers with good government connections, proceeded to go on a land-grabbing spree.\u00a0 As Marx described in Capital, to illustrate the ruthlessness of the process of capital accumulation, which now began in earnest, inaugurating the capitalist class: \u201cThe \u2018glorious Revolution\u2019 brought into power, along with William of Orange, the landlord and capitalist appropriators of surplus-value.\u00a0 They inaugurated the new era by practising on a colossal scale thefts of state lands, thefts that had been hitherto managed more modestly.\u00a0 These estates were given away, sold at a ridiculous figure, or even annexed to private estates by direct seizure.\u00a0 All this happened without the slightest observation of legal etiquette.\u00a0\u00a0The Crown lands thus fraudulently appropriated, together with the robbery of the Church estates, as far as these had not been lost again during the republican revolution, form the basis of the to-day princely domains of the English oligarchy.\u00a0 The bourgeois capitalists favoured the operation with the view, among others, to promoting free trade in land, to extending the domain of modern agriculture on the large farm-system, and to increasing their supply of free agricultural proletarians ready to hand.\u00a0 Besides, the new landed aristocracy was the natural ally of the new \u2018bankocracy\u2019, of the newly-hatched haute finance, and of the large manufacturers, then depending on protective duties<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 This large-scale theft and the brutal enclosure of common land that went with it, gave birth to the enormous estates which made capitalist farming aimed at the national and European markets possible.\u00a0 The peasantry forced off their land became dependent wage workers – the proletarian class destined to build capitalist fortunes – while the accumulation of mercantile capital to provide the basis for the industrial revolution was provided by the domination of the navy at sea.\u00a0 It was in this \u201cglorious period\u201d that the triangular trade, the enslavement of Africans for the sake of the American and Caribbean plantation economy, the ruination of India\u2019s domestic textile industry, the war on China\u2026 built the \u201cEmpire\u201d and capitalist fortunes.\u00a0 They were forged in African slaves\u2019 blood, the blood of the English and Scottish peasantry not to mention that of the Indians, Chinese and all other colonial peoples.\u00a0 Yes, and all presided over by a succession of kings and queens \u2013 of which Charles III – of the now \u201cCarolean\u201d era (!), is just the latest.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 So to hear the platitudinous nonsense being spouted by journalists over how the \u201cimperialist empire\u201d became the benign and voluntary \u201cCommonwealth\u201d under the reign of Elizabeth – even claiming it was her own creation, is actually a highly malign rewriting of history.\u00a0 Especially considering the fact that she herself presided over the brutal and unspeakably bloody \u201cpost colonial wars\u201d in Asia, the Middle East and Africa – including the murderous suppression of the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya, the Biafran war in Nigeria, and the wars over East Pakistan \u2013 with the creation of Bangladesh after the ill-fated partition of India.<\/p>\n

A regal mafiosi<\/strong><\/p>\n

Of course, the image of a politically \u201cneutral\u201d queen who never expressed a political opinion; a classless queen \u201cserving all of the people\u201d, is an illusion – and an obvious one at that.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Most people know that she was one of the richest individual capitalists in the world, although for some strange reason she no longer appears on the Sunday Times Rich List as she used to!\u00a0 If she did, she would certainly still be in the top 10.\u00a0 The Hinduja Brothers who head the current list can boast of a fortune of \u00a328.5bn; at number 10, is Michael Platt, the hedge fund financier with \u00a310bn\u2026\u00a0 Whereas the queen\u2019s huge real estate portfolio, known as the \u201cCrown Estate\u201d, is worth \u00a315.6bn – and this is only a part of her wealth (all of which now passes, without inheritence tax, to Charles, now \u201cKing\u201d Charles III).<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 The queen\u2019s father George VI, referred to the family as \u201cThe Firm\u201d.\u00a0 Indeed, for all of her 70-year reign, the queen was CEO of what amounts to a huge personal business and media empire.\u00a0 The \u201cInsider\u201d website says these acted as an \u201cindependent branch of government<\/em>\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 For the royal duties alone (excluding her own enterprises) 1,133 staff were employed to take care of the Royal Trust, the Chamberlain\u2019s Office, the Privy Purse, the Household Department and Private Secretary\u2019s department.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 However it seems that the \u201cFirm\u201d did not reciprocate the care offered by its staff.\u00a0 The Guardian newspaper reported on the 13 September that 100 (at least) of those working for the former Prince of Wales, now Charles III, at his (former) London residence and business HQ, Clarence House, received their redundancy notices during the period of mourning – in fact at the same time as a \u201cthanksgiving\u201d service was being held.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0It also seems that the meticulous detail the queen went into when planning her own deathfest, took no account whatsoever of the fate her own personal \u201cservants\u201d.\u00a0 Her loyal dressers who cared for her for decades, were left not knowing what would happen to them now their \u201cMa\u2019am\u201d was dead.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 It should also be said that The Royal Household is exempt from a number employment laws, including the Equality Act!\u00a0 In fact up until 1968 it consciously refrained from recruiting any worker with a black skin.\u00a0 But since it is not open to any scrutiny, today\u2019s situation may or may not have improved!<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 So what about all of that wealth owned by the late queen?\u00a0 Was it really hers?\u00a0 In fact, yes and no\u2026\u00a0 Since 1066, all of the country\u2019s land has been the property of the \u201ccrown\u201d.\u00a0 But in 1760, George III handed these \u201ccrown lands\u201d to the state to manage, not wanting the bother of it any more, for one reason or another.\u00a0 He agreed that the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury and in return he would receive a fixed annual payment – at the time, known as the Civil List, and now as the Sovereign Grant.\u00a0 Today the Crown Estate as it\u2019s known, encompasses London\u2019s Regent Street and St James, parts of countryside outside<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 London, shopping centres and retail parks \u2013 but also all of the British seabed up to 12 miles out from the coast!\u00a0 Which lately provides a lucrative income from offshore wind-farms!\u00a0 \u00a0Although all of this was \u201cowned\u201d by the queen during her lifetime, she was not able to sell any of it.\u00a0 The Crown Estate is today run as a fully-fledged commercial business with a staff of 450 people, who come under the Treasury.\u00a0 It made a profit of \u00a3312.7m in 2021\/22, out of which the queen\u2019s grant this year came to a cool \u00a3102m – an agreed 25%, recently increased from 15%.<\/p>\n

But that is not all.\u00a0 The monarch gets a more direct source of income from the Duchy of Lancaster (overseen by a government-appointed \u201cchancellor\u201d and with its own Whitehall department), which provides a so-called \u201cPrivy Purse\u201d and which paid her \u00a324m in 2021-22.\u00a0 This Duchy is a private estate, currently valued at \u00a3653m, which has belonged to the reigning monarch since 1399. Its holdings cover 18,248 hectares including farmland across Cheshire, Lancashire, Staffordshire and Yorkshire, commercial property like the Savoy estate in London, as well as financial investments, farmhouses, homes, and mining and foreshore rights.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Although 30 residences come under the ownership of the British monarch, she personally owned the palaces of Balmoral in Scotland (bought by Victoria and Albert in the 19th century), which sits on 50,000 acres of land, plus Sandringham in Norfolk, on 19,000 acres.\u00a0 Both include stud farms where the queen bred racehorses.\u00a0 In fact this self-confessed devout Christian and head of the Church of England was an enthusiastic promoter of gambling on horses, attending almost every Royal Ascot race, and running 22 winners.<\/p>\n

The dotty successor<\/strong><\/p>\n

As for Charles, now King, his (former) private estate, the Duchy of Cornwall of 135,000 acres spread across 23 counties already made him the largest private landowner (larger then the queen) in England.\u00a0 All this now passes to his oldest son, the willing William.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 The Duchy has net assets of \u00a31.05bn and in 2022, a \u201csurplus\u201d (his profit!) of \u00a323m.\u00a0 Recently he agreed to pay tax on this – however not corporation tax.\u00a0 He denies these are profits.\u00a0 Anyway he claims his expenditure in 2021 came to \u00a321m.., so it seems he only paid tax on \u00a32m!<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Despite its name, this \u201cDuchy\u201d is mostly outside Cornwall.\u00a0 It includes the Isles of Scilly, large parts of Devon including chunks of Dartmoor and even The Oval cricket ground in London!<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Forty years ago Charles personally bought Highgrove House in Gloucestershire, plus 900 acres of nearby land where he set up an organic farm, with the aim of selling its products commercially as \u201cDuchy Originals\u201d.\u00a0 But he got into financial difficulties and was luckily rescued by Waitrose supermarket chain (part of the John Lewis Group), which went into partnership with him establishing \u201cDuchy organics\u201d as a leading and expensive, but highly profitable brand.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Charles has been constantly lampooned, thanks to his whacky views, whether on architecture or when championing homeopathy and other \u201calternative\u201d anti-science views which he never hesitated to express and put into practice.\u00a0 Then there is his jiggery-pokery when it comes to his tax affairs – currently being questioned by Labour MPs, but perhaps not for long, now that he has become \u201cKing\u201d!\u00a0 To this day he argues that he is not and should not be liable to pay tax on the profits of his huge real estate empire nor on the profits he now (with the help of Waitrose) makes out of farming.\u00a0 Whether his son will be more honest remains to be seen, but it is highly unlikely.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 It is the case that he has apparently decided to slim down the monarchy and for the time being will not be moving to Buckingham Palace as it is being renovated.\u00a0 But it leaves many workers in the Royal Household and Clarence House up in the air.\u00a0 Some are in fact in the civil service union, whose leader has vowed to ensure they get \u201ctreated fairly\u201d.\u00a0 Since the civil service is currently balloting for strike action over pay, perhaps Charles will find himself faced with his first strike.<\/p>\n

\u201cOwner\u201d of one sixth of the world<\/strong><\/p>\n

So what about today\u2019s Commonwealth of 55 countries?\u00a0 Whose wealth is it?\u00a0 In fact land in the 14 realms in which the British monarch is head of state is also \u201cCrown Land\u201d.\u00a0 So, while the British Empire may be long gone, today King Charles \u201cowns\u201d only 22% less land than Queen Victoria did during the height of it!<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 In strict legal terms, this includes all the land of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, 32 other members of the Commonwealth, and Antarctica.\u00a0 The Australian Property Investor Magazine published an article 4 days after the queen\u2019s death raising this very issue: \u201cDespite the belief held by many Australian landholders that they own their land absolutely including anything above or below it, due to the Doctrine of Tenure, the law in Australia holds that the\u00a0<\/em>[British]\u00a0Crown has absolute ownership – not withstanding any native title claims. (…) While it may sound like largely irrelevant legalese, there are some very real ramifications arising from property rights issues in Australia right now involving Crown land.\u00a0 In Australia, minerals, oil and gas are \u2018reserved to the Crown\u2019 which means Australian state governments retain the rights to these resources if they are found on freehold land (\u2026) There is growing concern among Australian landholders, particularly in Queensland, regarding seemingly unauthorised entry and use of their land by coal seam gas companies for exploration activities, or the construction of an extraction plant or future pipelines<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 So the ambiguous legal niceties, symbolic and ceremonial as they may be, continue to have consequences in the world of big bucks and no doubt regardless of environmental impact, whether Charles claims greenness and eats organic or not.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 The late queen\u2019s legal title, \u201cHer Majesty, Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith<\/em>\u201d, puts in a nutshell the archaic feudal structure she represented, which did not only encompass the \u201cUK\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 It remains an immense establishment.\u00a0 As the Irish poet, Kevin Cahill explained in an article for the New Statesman (22 August 2022) entitled, \u201cWho owns the world?<\/em>\u201d, the British monarch actually retains legal tenure, that is de facto ownership, of 6.6 billion acres, i.e., one sixth, of the earth\u2019s surface, the largest land empire in history.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Cahill continues: \u201c…if the Queen could convert her landholdings into cash, she would not only be the richest individual on earth, but also the richest person who has ever lived<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 But then he makes an even more interesting point: \u201cAnother way she could achieve that, however, is by turning upside down the 13 tax havens of which she is both ruler and owner and shaking the cash out of them<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 No wonder those tiny islands in the Caribbean have been kept under the British crown\u2019s \u201cprotection\u201d! And by the way, as their populations testify after every catastrophic typhoon, their humanitarian needs are not even recognised; so it can be for no other reason!<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 For readers\u2019 information, Cahill succinctly explains what a tax haven is: \u201cfundamentally, a bandits\u2019 lair, (\u2026) where the bad guys gather with their stolen loot; (\u2026) where the international kleptocracy, often the rulers of states and their families, hide the money they steal while in office and where multinational corporations keep the cash and assets on which they have no wish to pay tax<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 He then points out ironically that \u201cIndeed, with its own peculiar rules of domicile, the UK, the Queen\u2019s primary realm, is itself a kind of tax haven for many<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Too true.\u00a0 And reason to keep as many overseas tax havens as possible in the family as well, even if the queen could not personally have cashed in on any of this; not officially, anyway!\u00a0 But then with her vast wealth and her every need attended to, why take the trouble?<\/p>\n

Only constitutional power?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The fact that the queen was not merely a figurehead sitting at the top of a parliamentary democracy was something the public was vividly reminded of during the week following her death when everything, including government itself, was halted for almost 2 weeks.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Britain\u2019s \u201cconstitutional\u201d monarchy is literally in a class of its own.\u00a0 And that is mostly down to the unwritten nature of the British Constitution.\u00a0 While the monarch is subservient to parliament, there remains an ambiguity in the fact that he\/she as head of the state, holds \u201cprerogative\u201d powers, i.e., powers by right.\u00a0 There is a very useful outline of the inbuilt contradictions \u2013 in fact deliberate ambiguity – of the monarchy in a recent document entitled \u201cThe Crown and the constitution<\/em>\u201d (Commons Library 22 February 2022), no doubt anticipating the 96-year-old queen\u2019s imminent demise.\u00a0 On the one hand it says, \u201cThe Royal Prerogative is one of the most significant elements of the UK\u2019s constitution<\/em>\u201d, but then adds that \u201cThe precise scope of prerogative powers is difficult to determine<\/em>\u201d!!\u00a0 In other words, left open?\u00a0 In fact the legal niceties surrounding the role of queen or king are ambiguous enough even to make a legal \u201cseizure of power\u201d by the head of state – with the help of his\/her majesty\u2019s loyal armed forces – at least a theoretical possibility.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Today\u2019s constitutional prerogative as head of state includes \u201cthe appointment and removal of ministers, including the Prime Minister, dismissing a government, the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament; Royal Assent to legislation, the appointment of Privy Counsellors \u2026 the power to appoint certain judges<\/em>\u201d and a number of other special powers.\u00a0 But of course they are all meant to be exercised on advice of government – and personally supervised by the prime minister of the day – who meets with the monarch every week…<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u201cDeep reserve powers\u201d, for instance dismissing a prime minister, were last used by proxy, not in Britain, but Australia in 1975, when the Governor – General of Australia, the queen\u2019s appointee, dismissed Labour prime minister Gough Whitlam and appointed the Liberal Party\u2019s Malcolm Fraser instead.\u00a0 But the \u201creserve powers\u201d remain in reserve!<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 This Commons document is actually very funny.\u00a0 Describing \u201cArchaic prerogative powers<\/em>\u201d, belonging to the monarchy – a legacy from before laws were ever made in these areas – it says that \u201cit is unclear whether some of these powers continue to exist<\/em>\u201d!\u00a0 However given some of the items listed it should be quite clear!\u00a0 For instance: Guardianship of infants and those suffering certain mental disorders; the right to sturgeon, (wild and unmarked) swans and whales; the right to wreck as casual revenue; the right to waifs and strays; the right to mint coinage; the Power of the Crown in time of war to intern, expel or otherwise control enemy aliens…<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Legal experts and the like, put much of the vagueness and ambiguity surrounding the role of the monarchy down to the fact that Britain does not have a written constitution – by which they mean a codified set of rules and statutes.\u00a0 The official reason is as follows: \u201cconstitutions are typically produced following a major historic turning point, such as the grant of independence, revolution, defeat in war, or complete collapse of the previous system of government.\u00a0 None of these things have happened to the UK, which is why it has never had cause to codify its constitution<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 Then in parenthesis: \u201c(Our one revolution, in the 17th century, did briefly produce a written constitution: Cromwell\u2019s Instrument of Government)<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 So that\u2019s it!\u00a0 \u201cThis is the reason why the UK has not felt the need to codify its constitution<\/em>\u201d – in order to remain in denial about the 1649-1660 republic?<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 What this lack of codification of law into a written constitution, means in practice however, is that all points of law need to be established through precedent.\u00a0 And \u201cprecedent\u201d means that the judiciary can haul up legal argument dating all the way back to 1066 if it really wants to!\u00a0 It gives unlimited possibilities for government barristers to plough through historical archives to find a way to prosecute workers on strike in the absence of direct anti-trade union legislation.\u00a0 The list of cases is endless; the most well-known being the Tolpuddle Martyrs, striking agricultural labourers prosecuted in 1834 under the Unlawful Oaths Act 1797, an obscure law used against mutiny.<\/p>\n

The elaborate last dance?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is evident that Elizabeth II was not hanging on to her crown long after she should have retired, merely to beat her great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria (who \u201creigned\u201d for only 63 years) to the post.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 QE2 hung on for 70 years because, unfortunately for the British establishment, the heir to her throne was the distracted and \u201cdotty\u201d by his own admission, Charles, who used to command mainly laughter, even if his more eccentric antiscience views (homeopathy) and quaint and backward-looking architectural projects (he has built a neoclassical model village called Poundbury in Dorset, Nansdelan in Cornwall and has already submitted development plans for at least 4 more\u2026) have by now been adapted to fit in with more mainstream ideas and in particular those against climate change.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 So while the monarchy has not been buried with the bones of Elizabeth II, as might have seemed fitting in this day and age, it is likely that the ruling class and its government will find it much more difficult to get the population to rally in \u201cunity\u201d round the new King.\u00a0 This is probably another reason he was left waiting on the sidelines until the ripe old age of 73.\u00a0 And why there was even some talk of the crown skipping a generation and landing on the head of his son.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 Nevertheless, this extravaganza for the dead queen seemed very much like a last gasp.\u00a0 This is what the Financial Times wrote: \u201cBefore the ceremony this week there had been debate in the media about whether Britain\u2019s sombre and united response to the Queen\u2019s death, along with the spectacular ceremony, was a reminder of the country\u2019s greatness or a distraction from its many problems.\u00a0<\/em>\u201d It could have inserted \u201cconsciously orchestrated\u201d in front of \u201csombre and united response\u201d.\u00a0 But yes, it was nothing if not a sentimental and nostalgic pantomime, harking back to the long-lost \u201cglory\u201d of empire which was extremely \u201cgory\u201d and inglorious.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 So in the middle of the worst cost-of-living crisis since the 1970s, and when a new prime minister had only just taken office (the queen appointed Liz Truss only 2 days before expiring, leading to some hilarious jokes) parliament was suspended for 2 weeks of mourning and assembled only to heap obsequiousness upon more obsequiousness.\u00a0 Members of Parliament wore black and the most puerile \u201cqueen\u201d anecdotes were repeated over and over as if this mediocre and cheerless monarch who epitomised backwardness and banality, was even worth quoting.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 The only republican who always refused to attend the Queen\u2019s opening of parliament, exminer and Labour MP for Bolsover, Dennis Skinner, retired from the Commons in 2019.\u00a0 But there is no guarantee that even he would have dissented and worn a red tie.\u00a0 This is what \u201cleft\u201d winger, Jeremy Corbyn felt he had to tweet: \u201cMy thoughts are with the Queen\u2019s family as they come to terms with their personal loss, as well as those here and around the world who will mourn her death.\u00a0 I enjoyed discussing our families, gardens and jam-making with her.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>[!]\u00a0May she rest in peace<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 As for his left-hand man, John McDonnell, this was his tweet: \u201cI send my deepest sympathy and condolences to the Queen\u2019s family.\u00a0 The passing of one\u2019s mother is such a sad loss and we can all appreciate what feelings of sadness and loss the family are going through now<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 Yes, as if this family was just like any other.\u00a0 Who else gets to parade their \u201cgrief\u201d in everyone\u2019s faces, dressed up in fancy dress, with tax payers picking up the tab for \u00a38m (at least!)?<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 The abject sight of the Labour Party leadership, all dressed in black, singing \u201cGod save the king\u201d under the Union Jack, on the first day of their annual conference (a full week after the queen\u2019s funeral) said it all about the class politics of His Majesty\u2019s Loyal Opposition.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 On the occasion of a visit of King George V to Ireland in 1910, Irish Marxist and nationalist leader James Connolly wrote, that British royalty in particular \u201chas been notorious in history for the revolting nature of its crimes.\u00a0 Murder, treachery, adultery, incest, theft, perjury \u2013 every crime known to man has been committed by some one or other of the race of monarchs from whom King George is proud to trace his descent.\u00a0 \u2018His blood has crept through scoundrels since the flood\u2019.\u00a0 We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 So far there is no indication whatsoever that dotty Charles will relinquish anything nor stand down; his son William is visibly preparing himself for the role of monarch in his grandmother\u2019s footsteps.\u00a0 So the monarchy will survive going forward, until the day it topples along with the class system it feeds off.\u00a0 This leaves us only to say: \u201cLong live the revolution!<\/em>\u201d; it cannot come soon enough.<\/p>\n

3.10.22\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

_________<\/p>\n

also see:<\/p>\n

70 years of failure – Phil Vellender and Steve Freeman, The Chartist<\/a><\/p>\n

The British royal family and its contribution to humanity \u2013 Gearoid O\u2019 Loingsigh, Socialist Democracy (Ireland)<\/a><\/p>\n

Imposed insanity, royalty, propaganda and the coming catastrophe \u2013 D.Cand DE, Media Lens<\/a><\/p>\n

Game of Thrones \u2013 Mike Small, bella caledonia<\/a><\/p>\n

The reign of Elizabrit, 70 years of imperialist and unionist violence \u2013 Allan Armstrong, <\/a><\/p>\n

EL&SD coverage of republicanism<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The EL&SD Editorial Board only received this article sometime after Elizabrit’s death and Charlie’s royal proclamation. We have already \u00a0posted several articles addressing these events. However we think this article contains valuable extra information highlighting the role of the British monarchy in defending ruling class interests and the particular form the UK state takes to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1843,1855,1858,1867,1873,1846,1874,1868,1862],"tags":[9141],"class_list":["post-22466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-how-capitalists-organise","category-exploitation-and-emancipation","category-oppression-liberation","category-emancipation-liberation-and-self-determination","category-against-unionism","category-british-imperialism","category-republicanism","category-against-imperialism","category-ideology-and-religion","tag-author-communist-union"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"views":7214,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22466","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22466"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22466\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22470,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22466\/revisions\/22470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}