Saturday, January 10, 2009

On the perils of inbreeding

Prince Harry has apologised for using a racist term to describe a member of his army platoon.
There he is pictured in a Nazi uniform attending a sedate gathering of like-minded intellectuals, sorry, I meant a Colonials and Natives party. Snigger, snigger.
A few days ago his cousin's car was stolen after she left the keys in the ignition of her unlocked car. By the way, she's supposed to be the family brainbox because she achieved an outstanding A and two Bs at A' level in such difficult subjects as Politics, Art and History of Art.
It's sobering to think that we subsidise this family of twits to the tune of £37.4m a year. What on earth do these shameless freeloaders spend such a magnificent sum on? Champagne cocktails, racehorses and deluxe skiing holidays? Well, yes, actually.
Look, don't get me wrong, I don't begrude them these harmless pleasures. I just object to paying for them. They could, at the very least, have the manners to ask my permission before they spend the money I have no choice in giving them each year. Ok, so it's only 62p but it's not the point, it's the principle. And that is that I shouldn't have to shell out for a whole family of wealthy leeches. They have enough accumulated personal wealth anyway - and is that even taxed at the appropriate rate? In 2005 Prince Charles paid just 23% tax on his income, though as far as I'm concerned he should definitely be in the higher rate 40% bracket. Incidentally, why isn't more of a fuss being made about this?
I'm prepared to be reasonable about this. I propose a deal. I pay for their security - fair's fair, after all - and they pay their own way after that. Even with interest rates plummeting as they are, the Queen's estimated fortune of £349m would, with a little judicious economising, safely cover her, her husband and her brood's living costs.
Think of what we could spend all the millions of pounds sterling their lavish lifestyles cost per annum. Some would naturally suggest more in the way of schoolz 'n' 'ospitals. But that would be unimaginative. No, the money would be better spent, especially in these dark days, on the nation's gaiety. I'd suggest a radical programme of ice-rink building, with a target of, say, an olympic sized ice-rink per medium-sized town or London borough and bouncy-castle ownership - a free one for each family within ten years. Who on earth could object?

5 Comments:

Blogger neprimerimye said...

It's money well spent you dreadful woman! You are acting in a most Are you unaware that the Royal family are closet Papists to a man? Now more than ever we need to return to the royal right of our God given sovereigns....

Which I thought would be your line you obscurantist you.

1/11/2009 6:38 AM  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

All that “Cherie is the First Lady” business. Her refusal to curtsey, and her blanking of members of the Royal Family. The references to Tony Blair as “the Head of State”. His reference to “my” Armed Forces. The fact that, at one time, the Downing Street website even said that the Queen had weekly audiences with him, rather than the other way around. The dropping of the Royal Coat of Arms from the Treasury’s logo, and of “HM” from its official title.

The Blairs’ hijacking of the 1997 State Opening of Parliament, of the death and funeral of Princess Diana, and attemptedly also of the funeral of the Queen Mother.

The proposal for a new national day as if none already existed, at least potentially. The endless definitions of Britishness in terms of abstract values not remotely peculiar to this or any other country. The 2007 Ministerial pamphlet that cited the likes of Sure Start as important symbols of Britishness but did not mention the monarchy.

That year’s Prime Ministerial announcement to Parliament of the contents of the forthcoming Queen’s Speech. The fact that the 1997 Labour Manifesto felt any need to include the assurance that “we have no plans to replace the monarchy”, something that would have gone entirely without saying on any previous occasion.

And so much else besides.

Truly, there is nothing more frightfully New Labour than hostility towards the monarchy, as much as anything else this country’s tangible link to the West Indies, and to the Canada, Australia and New Zealand to which our white working class has so many close ties. New Labour’s characteristic anti-monarchism is New Labour’s characteristic racism and New Labour’s characteristic snobbery.

Harold Wilson (so hated by the Sixties Swingers who did not realise how lucky they were to have only him to hate) and Jim Callaghan had famously good relations with the Palace and the Queen. Whereas Margaret Thatcher, the Mother of New Labour and the heroine of the 68ers as they applied their unchanged social views to economics, had famously bad relations with the Palace and the Queen, calling Her Majesty “the sort of person who votes for the SDP”.

For anti-monarchism in Old Labour was, and is, a fringe oddity. It is held either on the semi-detached Hard Left or (in the case of Roy Hattersley) by those simply eccentric on this one issue.

Old Labour spent something like half an hour on the question of the monarchy very early on in its history, resolved to leave things exactly as they were, and was staunchly monarchist ever thereafter, with the earldoms and the Garters at the top, and more MBEs than you could shake a stick at further down, to prove it.

Such were the people who gave this country the Welfare State, full employment and so forth, while keeping her out of the Vietnam War.

Compare and contrast...

1/12/2009 6:29 AM  
Blogger The Sentinel said...

Well if it's just the money you object too then surely you must be absolutely outraged at the money we are haemorrhaging on 'asylum seekers' and illegal immigrants and payments to overseas immigrant's familles - just to quote a few of the figures: —


"THE number of failed asylum seekers being supported by the taxpayer because they cannot be sent home has soared by a third.

More than 9,600 are now receiving help to buy food and other essentials at a cost of almost £70million-a-year"



http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/58319/Cost-of-supporting-failed-asylum-seekers-up-by-33-





"An amnesty for the estimated 700,000 illegal migrants already in the country would cost up to £2billion in the first year as they qualified for benefits.

And that figure would probably double after their children or family members joined them, says pressure group"



http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/75002/Immigrant-amnesty-bill-to-cost-4billion





"Britain's taxpayers are forking out more than £21million a year in child benefit for youngsters living in Poland, official figures reveal.

A loophole in EU regulations means migrants from other EU countries who are seeking work in the UK can claim state handouts for children they have left behind in their home countries.

The total benefits bill for the Treasury is likely to be closer to £50million a year when other Eastern European countries are included.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510873/Polish-migrants-living-Britain-claiming-21m-child-benefits-children-left-behind.html



A little more then 62p a year for these leeches- Outrageous, would you not agree?

1/12/2009 8:24 PM  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

In the words of G K Chesterton:

"Now, it is the particular honour of Europe since it has been Christian that while it has had aristocracy it has always at the back of its heart treated aristocracy as a weakness - generally as a weakness that must be allowed for. If anyone wishes to appreciate this point, let him go outside Christianity into some other philosophical atmosphere. Let him, for instance, compare the classes of Europe with the castes of India. There aristocracy is far more awful, because it is far more intellectual. It is seriously felt that the scale of classes is a scale of spiritual values; that the baker is better than the butcher in an invisible and sacred sense. No Christianity, however ignorant or extravagant, ever suggested that a duke would not be damned ... in Christian society we have always thought the gentleman a sort of joke, though I admit that in some great crusades and councils he earned the right to be called a practical joke."

1/13/2009 6:10 AM  
Blogger Merseymike said...

Not sure about the inbreeding in the case of Harry Hewitt! Looks more like him every day....

I agree with your sentiments on this subject if on little else!

1/24/2009 5:47 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home