Britain and its Monarchy

Britain and its monarchy

Information for overseas friends

Modern people will not like this and in fact the ultra-woke will be outraged and deplore it but from the time that the last ice age retreated, until about 1950, Britain was a warrior nation, A people where many thrived on physical conflict. A nation forged by almost continuous warfare, who ended up good at war. The heritage of the ruling kings, and queen; the whole system of governance by divine right, was based on war. The original stone age settlers have left evidence of violence, the later iron age Celtic tribes are known to have fought each other and then the invading Romans, Saxons and Nordic people. For a very long time what we call Britain was several kingdoms who fought each other unless there was a greater danger from invaders when they formed loose alliances to fight against these invaders. A largely Saxon Britain (actually a mixture of all the races who had lived and fought over the land) was taken over by the Normans- William the conqueror. The Normans had to fight to establish total control, various civil wars followed and during the Tudor reigns, the fighting became international. (Henry 8th breaking up the power of the Roman Catholic church, Elizabeth the 1st being relativity tolerant of a variety of Christian teachings etc.) Then came conflict between the king and the powerful lords who curbed the absolute power of the king in 12.15 ( Magna Carter) Power gradually ebbed away from the kings until the biggest civil war so far; between forces loyal to the king and those serving “Parliament.” This led to a brief period when Britain was in effect, a republic. Dissatisfaction with the way we were governed set in and the king was invited back with the power to impose their own ideas hugely curtailed. Gradually all real power was transferred to the Parliament and its elected government but the head of state had to be someone above party politics and the kings and queens who followed fitted nicely into this role. All of this history led eventually to the Victorian period and by then forging a nation who accepted warfare, was complete. A nation who held certain principles to be so important they would kill to uphold them. As with all nations, as the general population became more materialist and relatively wealthy, the attraction of warfare as a means of social progress eroded. The invention of machines that could kill from a distance totally ended even the pretence of chivalry in warfare and so Britain gradually lost its warrior mentality.

In our modern times where Television has blurred fact and fiction the British royal family have been used to sell film tickets, theatre tickets and billions of books and news print. The internet has allowed fiction to be presented as fact with impunity. The present Queen of Britain has had a long and event filled life, she helped hold the nation together though times bad and times good. She is now over 90 years old and naturally thoughts have turned to the succession. Charles. Based only on what the media gives out many think his son, William, will be better suited to the roll of King. Just about all that the general population knows is from the media and Charles has had a love hate relationship with the UK media for many years. Gradually much of what he pontificated about has become main stream acceptance so he deserves credit to staying with his beliefs and ideals through all the criticism he was subjected to earlier. His marriage to Diana was a huge mistake forced on him and her, by state and crown officials. She was unsuited to his life style and he to hers. The media like to portray her as some sort of saint and he as a villain over the divorce but from what is known, rather than what the tabloids say; it was six of one and half dozen of the other. They both were pushed into a situation that neither liked nor were personally suited to. He is happier and better supported in his second marriage and most- but not all- Brits accept that. To all those who think we should get rid of the monarchy altogether the question has to be asked, what do you put in their place? an appointed head of state? appointed by who? an elected president with no actual power? which sort of person is going to seek that job? between the various members of the present royal family they carry out a huge number (probably thousands with out pandemic situations) of "engagements" every year from state opening of parliament to opening a new shopping centre in say Newcastle. Who is going to do this if there is not a royal family? how corruptible will these untrained appointees be?

Much of the questioning about Charles suitability to be king is based on the break up of his marriage to Diana. Some fictionalised accounts of Diana tend to claim she was unused to royal protocols and customs They seem to ignore that as the daughter of an earl she was very near the top of the aristocratic tree in her own right. She was surrounded by people belonging to the aristocracy all her life. She was raised in a stately home with servants and staff on hand every moment of the day. Much is made of her “life” as a young women living in a flat with others of the same age and “working” at cleaning for her sister. Fictional rubbish. She had no financial worries, no need of a job, no concern about paying rent, it is nearer the truth to say that her life was that of the idle rich. She was raised from birth to be part of the top rung of a class dominated society. Meghan for all her many faults and lies; at least has the excuse that she had no real experience of how hard she was expected to work to be a royal in Britain. Diana was raised from birth to it.

Those who would like to end the monarchy complain bitterly about the poor down trodden tax payers subsidising the extreme affluence of the family who are the nominal head of state for Britain. The finances of British royalty is an area where fact and fiction have become merged to make an almost impenetrable jungle of truth, lies and suppositions. Anti royalists ( republicans) complain bitterly about the costs to the tax payer through the civil list This is tax payers money paid to the royal family for carrying out duties and engagements for the state. Most of this considerable amount of money goes in paying the staff and administration of the royal household. Note if the monarchy is abolished and some sort of presidential head of state (with no actual legal or political power) these costs would still be incurred and still have to be met by the tax payer.

Confusion exists over the separation of personal property and “regalia” equipment owned by the royal family and property etc. used by the royal family but owned by the state-- in the same way that the Prime Minister uses number 10 Downing street and all government ministers use homes and offices owned by the state.

Much political criticism is made over the wealth on the Prince of Wales- Charles- this comes from the Duchy of Cornwall which he runs quite efficiently but in the usual sense of the word he does not own it. The duchy was created in 1337 by the then king to ensure his successor had both independence ( it is very hard to bribe a very wealthy prince) and work to do. ( until he became king) The Duchy of Cornwall is accountable to the Treasury ( British government finance department) Charles can not do as he likes with the Duchy; its capital assets are held in trust and the treasury must approve all land transaction over £500K

The Duchy provides Charles and the vast charitable foundations, with the money they need.

When Charles becomes king he gives up being in charge of the Duchy of Cornwall. William then becomes responsible for the administration of all the charities, enterprises and lands involved.

Much republican political angst is voiced over the tax position of royal “income” but there is no illegality involved. Over hundreds of years British governments have evolved the present situation.

So much media information is generated by opponents of the monarchy and these obviously try to portray things in a negative way and every one of these “reports” totally ignore the elephant in the room- what replaces the monarchy? what will this replacement cost? and who will control this replacement?